Results 1 to 38 of 38

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    1,630
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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


    http:// socionics.ru /component/content/article/52-socionicskat/699-mbtisocionics2

  2. #2
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,097
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    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



  3. #3

  4. #4
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    493
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is pretty much consensus, anybody who tries to merge the two is an idiot to be frank.

  5. #5
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    1,630
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It depends on what we mean by MBTI. The type indicator or the functions? The descriptions of the functions or the order of the functions?

  6. #6
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    908
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    It depends on what we mean by MBTI. The type indicator or the functions? The descriptions of the functions or the order of the functions?
    The only thing that is not completely flawed are the descriptions of the functions.

  7. #7
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    1,630
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    The only thing that is not completely flawed are the descriptions of the functions.
    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."

  8. #8
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Umm.. didn't know that Jung once had weight of 1921 kg.
    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

  9. #9
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    908
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    1,630
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    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.
    Socionists have tried to adjust information aspects to Jungian functions. It is not the other way around, so the aspects are more or less flawed. And secondly, there are only descriptions of the Jungian functions. We cannot compare definitions with descriptions.

  11. #11
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    908
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Socionists have tried to adjust information aspects to Jungian functions. It is not the other way around, so the aspects are more or less flawed. And secondly, there are only descriptions of the Jungian functions. We cannot compare definitions with descriptions.
    So you think jungian functions are more accurate than socionics IM's'? I don't understand the last part.

  12. #12
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    1,630
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Petter; 11-17-2016 at 07:58 AM.

  13. #13
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    908
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    493
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Socionists have tried to adjust information aspects to Jungian functions.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    It is not the other way around, so the aspects are more or less flawed. And secondly, there are only descriptions of the Jungian functions.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    We cannot compare definitions with descriptions.
    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.

  15. #15
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Socionists have tried to adjust information aspects to Jungian functions. It is not the other way around, so the aspects are more or less flawed.
    No they haven't. This is just stupid. Augusta originally based her concept of the IM aspects/elements/whatever on the Jungian functions and only changed them because they didn't match up with reality. Any attempt to "reconcile" the two would just be a step backwards.

  16. #16
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    1,630
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    No they haven't. This is just stupid. Augusta originally based her concept of the IM aspects/elements/whatever on the Jungian functions and only changed them because they didn't match up with reality. Any attempt to "reconcile" the two would just be a step backwards.
    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.

  17. #17
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    1,630
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  18. #18
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    493
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    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.
    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

  19. #19
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    1,630
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    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?

  20. #20
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    493
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    What are those beliefs/evaluations based on? Emotions! So Socionics Fe and Jungian Fe refer to same thing.

    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.

  21. #21
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    1,630
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    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.
    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.

    A couple of socionists and MBTI chose to interpret impersonal and personal decision making as the difference between "thinking" and "feeling" but
    ...and that is an accurate assessment.

    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
    “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)”

    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.

    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.
    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 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.

  22. #22
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •