Question regarding Socionics and MBTI

[Exodus]

If we say that both are only "interpretations" of Jung's work then Socionics becomes a really weird interpretation when most of it's definitions don't seem to have a retraceable root in Jung's work. If we compare the type descriptions Jung wrote in Psychological Types to the modern type descriptions of MBTI and Socionics, and we approach both as being purely "interpretations", then we can say that they're really poor interpretations because of how much they differ from their supposed source material. They're not describing the same types because the types in both systems are defined as being different things, because the types in both systems are defined on the basis of different things. The way many people I've seen as of yet approach the topic makes it appear as if types and functions/information elements are tangible things which we can observe in order to accurately describe and not abstract categories we create in order to make it easier for ourselves to understand reality, which isn't one I've really ever gotten.

Very well put.���� Socionics is "a really weird interpretation" of Jung because (surprise) Augusta engaged in actual research that wasn't meant to preserve Jung's ideas as some kind of holy scripture. She says that in this process some of his ideas were changed completely. She simply found that they didn't agree with reality.

If you do think Jung is holy scripture, then why not just use Jung's theory and ignore socionics? If you do use them both either 1) you have to ignore the glaring contradictions between the two or 2) you have to say that Jung was "wrong about his own types", which is absurd. Most self-professed Jungians in this community tend do (1) with occasional examples of (2).

[Dalek Caan]

Very well put.���� Socionics is "a really weird interpretation" of Jung because (surprise) Augusta engaged in actual research that wasn't meant to preserve Jung's ideas as some kind of holy scripture. She says that in this process some of his ideas were changed completely. She simply found that they didn't agree with reality.

If you do think Jung is holy scripture, then why not just use Jung's theory and ignore socionics? If you do use them both either 1) you have to ignore the glaring contradictions between the two or 2) you have to say that Jung was "wrong about his own types", which is absurd. Most self-professed Jungians in this community tend do (1) with occasional examples of (2).

People can do whatever they want, but most people that look into Socionics haven't looked into Jung. And they really aren't knowledgeable enough to say they are not complementary. Then add on to the fact that the Jungian stuff is lot more esoteric and requires a study of philosophy to really appreciate and it's immediately obvious to me how flawed this idea of them being incompatible is.

In fact, there's never been a proper thread on here that has explained irrefutably why they wouldn't agree on a theoretical level. And saying Socionics is about information metabolism and Jung about the psyche (which is the only argument I've heard) is an extremely poor argument. There's no reason one can't follow from the other...