hi, i'm ENFP! i'm from Russia, so i it is easier for me to perceive myself as Huxley, because socionics in my country is more widespread and i still haven't reviewed the differences between socionics and MBTI.
introduction
hi, i'm ENFP! i'm from Russia, so i it is easier for me to perceive myself as Huxley, because socionics in my country is more widespread and i still haven't reviewed the differences between socionics and MBTI.
On the level of what MBTI test identifies - preferences / dichotomies - it's same as Socionics. MBTI identifies Jung types which are used in Socionics. Other parts of MBTI related texts you may forget as there are serious contradictions to Jung which are mistakes. Better is to read Jung and Socionics texts.Originally Posted by kiskamuryska
Some texts in Russian about socionics are there. I recommend to read Filatova's book "Личность в зеркале соционики" to know the basics. Jung's book about types should exist there too. You may also look Augustinavichiute's texts to know what theory may be related to Socionics. Ideas of other authors does not relate. Reinin's traits I recommend to do not use too.
P.S. Make a typing theme on socioforum and mb here, as generally there is good chance of mistakes in own type.
thank you! well, as i know, socionics itself was created by the ussr economist Augustinavichiute and based on Jung's and Kepinski's theories. due to this it has gained currency on the ex-soviet territories, especially in russia. i guess, about 20% of locals have heard of socionics at least once in their life...
thank you for the reply and your recommendations! it was not me who said that i am Huxley! my type was determined by two specialists from a trustworthy school of socionics after a real-life interview. i have no doubts in my type ahaha
btw now i am taking a course of the basics of socionics there
There are no typers which have _objective_ reason to suppose them as typing with high accuracy.
Today typing methods have high speculativity. Some typers much use baseless doubtful additions to normal theory. This makes real typing matches between all typers far from to be high and means significant % of mistakes they all may do. Common typing match of experienced typers may be ~50% only, based on the known experiments and other data.
To get additional opinions about your type from experienced typers is generally useful to understand own type. This shows the most possible types and what traits have higher chance to be correct. For the same you may use tests too, but tests are often similar and so the match of their results means lesser.
The only good way to be assured in your type is to get a positive checking by IR (intertype relations) effects with >10 people IRL. It's done by yourself - you type people near until your impressions will fit good to IR theory, besides behavior of those people fits to expected by the theory. This checking may take monthes.
> of socionics after a real-life interview
To suppose possible types is generally enough a short videointerview. And a questionnaire's text as an addition.
> i have no doubts in my type ahaha
while there is no good basis for this
you may easily to have another F type
alike beta F
> now i am taking a course of the basics of socionics there
The needed theory is in books. Courses may be useful by practical part, mainly. But when it's based on often wrong examples of types this is doubtful to be helpful.
It's good that you have enough interest to do efforts to study types. I've recommended you the optimum approach for this.
This is not hard to place your short video on forums and a questionnaire text. This significantly may reduce the chance for your mistake in own type. In case you'll then check it by IR.
the said is enough
I have the same nick on socioforum
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote