-
Typology is same Jung's one, preferences are same, hence types designated by only preferences are same evidently.
Mismatch in types is due to wrong typing, what is common.
By what Socionics method and by whom those MBT dudes identified their Socionics types? Most of them I suppose even were not typed, but just read types descriptions, - what is not serious "typing"; that MBT has other (and not as at Jung) wrong types description for introverted types and thus may get systematic error here was know befor (in MBT functions order for INTJ is taken from INTP, etc). MBT has differing types description also due to bad Jung's functions detailing, partly wrong detailing, but nevertheless _functions are same_ what is seen from same core functions theory. It they'd read only description of preferences in Socionics and choose by them - they'd choose same types (and yes - Jung's E/I is part of Socionics too so it's compatible by preferences descriptions).
Your charts are senseless. Heap of incompenet self typings by unconvincing methods.
About wrong typing. When all typers today match in typing in 30% cases at maximum (maybe some rare more, but have not seen still) - this shows they type bad. In other case good ones should to have good match, at least, and ideally also objective proof of their good typing. This about normal typing by experienced typers, but not "I have read for 5 minutes their decriptions and that looks closer hence that is my type" what may give results even worse. In such situation with massive wrong typings to compare MBT and Socionics/Jung types only empirically is not convincing, while more to say - empirical comparation was not correct.
Why MBT insist on difference, including with substantiation by idiotic selftypings, - competition with more advanced approach of Socionics and trying to hide that unlike Socionics, MBT uses not Jungian model for introverted types. They have choice to say "we lied you for decades about introverted types while you were fools wich even did not read Jung" or see how people turn from MBT to Socionics after understanding that MBT is wrong in this important part, and had no obstruction to use and research 8 functions. While now in MBT practice their mistake is masked by using mostly preferences (wich are correct), and minor direct using of functions.
Why some in Socionics insists on the difference? May be because it gives more feeling of exclusiveness. Maybe copyright problems with using same names for types. And as MBT is interested to support lie about difference despite evidence of same Jung's typology, same preferences and hence same 4-letter types, - this support may to be in different ways, including dirty ones - get control/influence on enemies and lead them to wrong way, there are not many noticable English sites about Socionics to be this hard. Impose on people idiotic hypotheses like Reinin's dichotomies, DarkAngelFireWolf69's fantasies, subtypes, phisiognomic VI instead of normal intuitive-nonverbal analysis, etc - anything what is different, what is doubtful, and the farther from Jung the better.
And the result of this sabotage and simplicity people in Socionics is excelent. After 10 years main socionics forum has less than 1000 members! While number of people having native English is more than 300 million, more than 1 billion may read and speak it. To understand the situation. People who has native Russian is about 200 million and socioforum wich exists similar time has 30 000 members. There is no serious advertising of Socionics - it's mostly Internet phenomenon, sometimes people buy books (artificial limiting of publishing and access to Socionics books is another story, but I think it may exist too) - that's all. Similar conditions, but terrible popularization result on English area. Why? Because in trend is to say bullshit about essence difference and incompatibility of Socionics and MBT.
People know about MBT and may then come to Socionics, but they see "it's another typology" (despite MBT and Socionics are same Jung's typology), "ahh.. those dudes who type by phisiognomy", "they use different bs like Renin's or something" - 90% of people are misleaded, and 10% try to read something and may turn from MBT heresy to Socionics and normal Jung's typology.
Want to make Socionics more popular?
- Stop using lie like INTj or INTJ = INTP. Say INTJ = INTJ.
- Make official section clearly seen on main page where say what is normal, classical Socionics and popularize it. But not equate Reinin's delusion to Jung's basic theory or model 'A' - they are on totally different levels of trust, Reinins are baseless derivative hypothesis from Jung. DarkAngelFireWolf69's fantasies are derivative from Reinin's bs and has trust even less. Don't mix all this to one heap like it's equal to Jung's base theory.
- Stop use of Ganin's term "VI" - he uses phisiognomy to type people. Say other term, say that visually is typical to type by behavior (nonverbal), but not by forms of noses and ears.
- Make the theme "Recommendation of materials for typing" in typing section. With a link to large form (not short one), - you may translate Eglit's form. Give there links to preferences tests. Translate DarkAngelFireWolf69's preferences test, if it's possible find Jung's institute preferences test, give links to MBT tests as they use same preferences. Give recommendations for making video interviews and explain about importance of nonverbal information for typing, explain that it's not common for Socionics when phisiognomy is used.
- Additionaly it's good to make comfortable meeting database for those who want to try duals.
the situation is something like this
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules