Changing my type to ESI

[Tallmo]

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.

Knowing the phenomenon or understanding the model doesn’t make a person more objective about their type.

It can make them more objective. If you are able to double check things that's generally a good thing.

[Poptart]

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.

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.

[Sol]

I think MBTI gets a few things correct that socionics misses

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.