http:// socionics.ru /component/content/article/52-socionicskat/699-mbtisocionics2
http:// socionics.ru /component/content/article/52-socionicskat/699-mbtisocionics2
The link should be: http://socionics.ru/component/content/article/52-socionicskat/699-mbtisocionics2
The original URL had a couple of extra spaces.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsocionics.ru%2Fcomponent%2Fconten t%2Farticle%2F52-socionicskat%2F699-mbtisocionics2&edit-text=
IMO, MBTI is flawed. Socionics model A and B represent reality much better,
SRSI:
"Correspondence of information aspects with Jung’s functions has been proved experimentally in observations of many years. That is Jung’s colossal practice and the great work by Aushra Augustinavichuite, by her students and stalwarts. We come across the first semantic tables in Medvedev’s, Vaisband’s (Onufrienko’s) works. Such research are going on till present time, articles on this theme are published from time to time. Big work on a vocabulary compiling is done by V.D. Ermak in Kiev. Many other socionics suggest their own semantic tables."
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Yep. Still, the definitions differ a bit on some of them. Se and Si are mixed up (or rather, MBTI Se is -Se/+Si exclusively), Ti and Te are also mixed up (MBTI Ti is -Te/+Ti and also -Ti and Te is only +Te). Among others.
Yes, Jung's/Berens' descriptions of the functions are more accurate/correct (but less precise) than SSS and mainstream Socionics' definitions of information aspects. Jung observed people's behavior and described eight (2x4) distinctly different cognitive processes. Aushra then tried to combine Jung's theory with information metabolism, so she introduced information aspects. These had to correspond with Jung's functions. However, Te/P (for example) is problematic in both SSS and mainstream Socionics theory.
It's a comparison of apples and oranges.
Last edited by Petter; 11-17-2016 at 07:58 AM.
One thing I've noticed is that people in MBTI based forums seem to be apt at typing by identifying the functions people are using. Many times I have not found a satisfactory answer here when searching for a particular person's type, so I've looked in an MBTI based forum, and the answers there are many times correct (even when translating said type into socionics terms). Even when it is not correct, it has clued me in as to what the person's type could be. The definitions in MBTI are simpler and more effective. Here what we have is the likes of "Internal dynamics of objects". Seriously, whatever does that mean? So this is a potential area of improvement for Socionics.
How do you know this? Where is your evidence for making such an assession? If you've just pulled this conjecture out of your arse then you are going to find yourself in a pickle with everyone seeing you as an idiot.
By mentioning flawed it is assumed that you have a reference for everyone else to question and test your logic upon. What is the evidence you are using to judge aspects as more or less flawed?
This makes no sense. Unless it's translation issue where you've misunderstood the minute difference between definition and description, in which case rephrase your explanation.
SRSI:
"Correspondence of information aspects with Jung’s functions has been proved experimentally in observations of many years. That is Jung’s colossal practice and the great work by Aushra Augustinavichuite, by her students and stalwarts. We come across the first semantic tables in Medvedev’s, Vaisband’s (Onufrienko’s) works. Such research are going on till present time, articles on this theme are published from time to time. Big work on a vocabulary compiling is done by V.D. Ermak in Kiev. Many other socionics suggest their own semantic tables."
No, they had to change them. It is much harder to define aspects (i.e. information) than to describe functions (i.e cognitive processes). Both SSS definitions and external statics of objects etc. are good attempts, but they are far from perfect.
Definitions:
Te (external dynamics of objects)
Ti (external statics of fields)
Fe (internal dynamics of objects)
Fi (internal statics of fields)
Ne (internal statics of objects)
Ni (internal dynamics of fields)
Se (external statics of objects)
Si (external dynamics of fields)
Static - "Snapshots"
Dynamic - Objects and fields in motion
Extroverted (object, body) - Things as independent of other things
Introverted (field) - Relationships between things
External - Explicit, directly sensible content of reality
Internal - Implicit, indirectly perceivable content of reality
Irrational - Raw, unfiltered information
Rational - Interpreted information
If a description of aspects contradicts these definitions then it is useless! (SSS uses other definitions)
Last edited by Petter; 11-17-2016 at 10:21 AM.
You remember this article by Roan LaPlante/Aestrivex? It is pretty apparent that whatever Jung, MBTI, nor socionics talks about are abstractions that have little to do with each other, beyond rudimentary similarities. Now, in fact, socionics and MBTI are rudimentary closer to each other that whatever Jung's esoteric writings have to say.
https://www.techhouse.org/socionics/essay_jcf.html
First of all, Roan is not a socionist. He's a self-proclaimed expert. He compares descriptions of information aspects with Jungian functions, but he draws the wrong conclusions.
For example; "Externalized sense of value. Belief of values and worth is dependent on the external surroundings. When our surrounding tells us that it is important to be respectful of friends and family, that is what we utilize as Fe value. When we accept values of the church, it becomes our Fe value. It tells us to adopt social roles based on our external surroundings."
What are those beliefs/evaluations based on? Emotions! So Socionics Fe and Jungian Fe refer to same thing.
Most importantly, though, do the descriptions correspond with definitions of information aspects?
Actually no, beliefs do not have to be derived from emotions contrary to popular misunderstanding, (Jung's) "feelings" are detached from emotions or sentiment being instead, a rational impartial perspective of the world.
Emotions are a separate irrational and personal aspect of decision-making that are "involved" and influenced by sentiment. A couple of socionists and MBTI chose to interpret impersonal and personal decision making as the difference between "thinking" and "feeling" but Jung doesn't talk about that at all rather vehemently arguing the contrary.
Socionics is a derivative system with its own perspectives influenced with observations that align with reality as opposed to Jung's esoteric system. The logic of socionics follows it's own axiom so if you are ever to merge the two with MBTI then whatever you are calling socionics isn't socionics. In before real vs fake Socionics/socionists, that's another can of worms people in the east have failed to fix the past 30 years due to a flawed premise - the failure to employ scientific methods.
I spoke to this ESFJ girl a couple of years ago about the idea which seemed stupid to me, but it turns out she was a thinker yet her thinking naturally can be explained by the overlap negating the emotional interpretation of the world.
http://personalitycafe.com/esfj-arti...-function.html
Last edited by Soupman; 11-17-2016 at 11:40 PM.
No, there are emotions, social cognition and cognition. Jungian Fe and Fi (as well as Aushra's Fe and Fi) are about social cognition. Social cognition: "Judging a person's beliefs vs. attributes about an object". And social cognition is a part of the limbic system.
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n05/mente/struct_i.htm
Wikipedia (machine translation):
"The front of Cingulate gyrus is central to the affective response of physical pain and is involved in the discovery and interpretation of social pain such as threats, rejection, exclusion, loss and negative evaluation of others. The front of Cingulate gyrus is particularly active when the individual is thinking negative thoughts about themselves."
We must also distinguish between SSS theory and mainstream Socionics. SSS E (Fe) seems to be about emotions.
...and that is an accurate assessment.A couple of socionists and MBTI chose to interpret impersonal and personal decision making as the difference between "thinking" and "feeling" but
“What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on. Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect, which is, as the words convey, an involuntary manifestation. Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterize an emotion. Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)”Jung doesn't talk about that at all rather vehemently arguing the contrary.
I spoke to this ESFJ girl a couple of years ago about the idea which seemed stupid to me, but it turns out she was a thinker yet her thinking naturally can be explained by the overlap negating the emotional interpretation of the world.
http://personalitycafe.com/esfj-arti...-function.html
Yes! But this does not contradict my previous comment. Feeling (or Ethics of emotions) is a judgement that is based on emotions, i.e. it considers emotional responses in people.
First of all, Jung's/MBTI's observations align most accurately with reality. And it is not that complicated. If you want to combine a personality theory/theory of the psyche (Jung) with information metabolism, then you must define eight different kinds of information (aspects). Otherwise you cannot analyze language, exchange of information and social interaction.Socionics is a derivative system with its own perspectives influenced with observations that align with reality as opposed to Jung's esoteric system. The logic of socionics follows it's own axiom so if you are ever to merge the two with MBTI then whatever you are calling socionics isn't socionics. In before real vs fake Socionics/socionists, that's another can of worms people in the east have failed to fix the past 30 years due to a flawed premise - the failure to employ scientific methods.
Socionics distinguishes between functions and aspects (and sometimes IM elements). 'Aspect' is included in MBTT/Jungian 'function'. Btw, SSS uses 'aspect' but calls it 'information element'.
The big difference between Socionics and MBTT is that aspects are defined in Socionics but functions (including aspects) are only approximately described in MBTT.
@Soupman the fact remains that Jung was attempting, with his personality types, to describe real people, and socionics does a far better job of that because Augusta and her colleagues refined it with their own observations.
What you say is ironic, considering how you yourself have spectacularly failed to understand Augusta's ideas.