SRSI's view on Socionics and MBTI (in Russian)

[Petter]

So you think jungian functions are more accurate than socionics IM's'? I don't understand the last part.

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.

[mclane]

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.

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.