There is no reason to type yourself in mbti at all. Just use Socionics. It's not more difficult than mbti. The only reason people think it's difficult is because you actually have to get your typd right.Originally Posted by Poptart
There is no reason to type yourself in mbti at all. Just use Socionics. It's not more difficult than mbti. The only reason people think it's difficult is because you actually have to get your typd right.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Idk I think there’s plenty of room to get your type “wrong” in socionics. People frequently disagree on how to type people on here.
yes, of course people mistype themselves in the beginning. But socionics knows all about how the functions affect relationships and how weak functions manifest. You have many points of reference to consider. There is not much room to imagine a type for yourself when you have to take into account all this information. It can take a long time for some people. But when you have done the work, your type is basically set in stone, because you know the basic phenomenon itself.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Knowing the phenomenon or understanding the model doesn’t make a person more objective about their type. People are generally bad at self evaluation. In fact, the more a person studies socionics, the easier it is for them to delude themselves into believing they’re a certain type because now they can justify all sorts of behavior with dichotomies, subtype systems, etc.
Then Jung's typology is too difficult for that person. These things exist whether we are aware of them or not.
It can make them more objective. If you are able to double check things that's generally a good thing.Knowing the phenomenon or understanding the model doesn’t make a person more objective about their type.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
My point is that there’s plenty of room for people to be wrong in socionics. People don’t always see themselves objectively. Even typing “experts” frequently disagree with each other, and all of them can’t be right.
Honestly I think MBTI gets a few things correct that socionics misses, but that’s okay. I understand that this forum is for socionics, not MBTI.
MBTI is a test based on same dichotomies which Socionics uses.
If to take a manual to this test - there is more ideas. Among which I doubt exists something _useful_ what was not at Jung. Meanwhile and also there exist mistakes with strong contradiction to Jung as about functions of introverted types.
While Socionics is about a single idea of supplementing/opposing functions. Other is secondary and many is wrong/doubtful in Augustinavichiute's ideas.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote