Why socionics is less popular than MBTI

[idiot]

I find that people always want to make things like personality theory into a black box: you provide a little information as input, something happens in the middle, and you expect a lot of output. Furthermore, the smaller the ratio between input and output is, the more mainstream the algorithm is.

Astrology: the time you are born -> wide variety of predictions and traits. very popular

MBTI: simple test -> wide variety of predictions and traits. not as popular as astrology

Socionics requires a lot more input than MBTI or Astrology, and thus it is not as popular. Socionics is weird in that it kind of inverts the input/output scheme. Instead of moving from less to more, it moves from more to less. In order to find out your socionics type, you need to sufficiently understand the theory and yourself. Then you can type yourself.

The difference is obvious:
MBTI and astrology promise to reveal shit you don't know about yourself by inputting a lesser amount of shit and getting a lot of shit back.
For socionics, you have to know about yourself to get a type. Thus it is more work. Furthermore, what use is a personality system if instead of giving you insights about your personality, it expects you to find the insights yourself? Then it is just useful as a label, so that you can tell more about each person by the socionics type they label themselves with.

I also notice people in the community are drawn to certainty and avoid ambiguity. There is no ambiguity to astrology for example, your birth month can not change. MBTI is a lot simpler, thus there is less ambiguity. There is a lot of ambiguity to socionics.

Even though socionics is more dynamic/ambiguous than the others, I still think that the attachment to certainty in this community is why people believe that a socionics type can not change. Honestly, I don't see any reason why it can't change. People can say "oh your true type was just hidden this whole time" but this in my mind holds the same level of validity that the type just changed. It's also a pretty liberating thought.

Oh all the people who did decades of research in developing the theory say that type is fixed from birth? Don't care .
(Yes I'm aware that a lot of socionics work is untranslated in Russian. Though I hold the lack of initiatives to translate it as a lack of interest in the West)

[misanthropex6]

MBTI got 4 functions for you to understand, their logic is faulty but instead subjective, they leave a lot open to interpretation. Socionics got 8 functions for you to understand, each in categories, becoming much more complex, explaining a point other function may not have made clearer, thus creating a lot more precision in the cognitive functions itself. I dare say socionics is the most precise typing system to ever exist. You can't compare astrology to any typology/personality theory, astrology is mysticism and rooted in matters which require faith in the unknown and old traditions to work with, while psychological personality typing is based on observation, human psyche patterns and general behavior.
People tend to like (not to blame them, in any way) the easier road. Some will only stumble across and get interested in socionics after realizing the mess that MBTI and enneagram is. It may take a while, it may never happen. MBTI is first in the path of someone getting interested in typology, then come all that crap of enneagram, socionics is usually one of the last.
There are some who believe your type in any system is fixed from birth because it's cognitive functions. One can identify a mistype and better understand or draw close to their precise typing, because one has believed in stereotypes and not the actual truth of the matter. Of course, such discussions have been around since forever, and are still to this day debatable, but still.

[VagrantFarce]

The structure is more complex, and the language used is typically a lot colder and more difficult to penetrate. More slavic, in other words.

Also, its just poorly translated sometimes.

I tend to think both systems are trying to point to the same thing. MBTI is just more accessible, and it suffers from dilution & distortion as people continue to "retell the tale" over and over. Socionics just has more of an air of academia about it.

[Adam Strange]

MBTI says that this apple can go with the banana or the grapes, but probably not the orange or the watermelon, but hey, give it a shot and it might work out. Also, every one of the fruits and vegetables is awesome and cool.

MBTI is a lot like Astrology in that sense.

In contrast, Socionics says that you have one, fairly good shot at a fairly good relationship with one single type of person who is very different from yourself and the relationship works best if both of you are under terrific stress, and not so much otherwise, and it's downhill from there with every other type.

Socionics, in addition to being a bit harder to grasp, is not a "good news" kind of system.

[persimmonism]

MBTI says that this apple can go with the banana or the grapes, but probably not the orange or the watermelon, but hey, give it a shot and it might work out. Also, every one of the fruits and vegetables is awesome and cool.

MBTI is a lot like Astrology in that sense.

In contrast, Socionics says that you have one, fairly good shot at a fairly good relationship with one single type of person who is very different from yourself and the relationship works best if both of you are under terrific stress, and not so much otherwise, and it's downhill from there with every other type.

Socionics, in addition to being a bit harder to grasp, is not a "good news" kind of system.

I'm starting to realize that most people are satisfied with nonduality, even if they are aware. Most people are not supposed to need one ideal person to fulfill everything. We are meant to get a little bit from here, a little from there.

I know I need an SLE with every bone in my being and I think it's less than I'm enlightened and more that something's off-kilter.

I've been suspecting it has something to do with having an incomplete sense of self. Adam, have you ever heard of the concept of developmental mourning, in the object relational sense?
Okay, I can't seem to find it online (after a lazy 10s search) so I'm going to copy down an excerpt of a book I have:

The maturational acceptance of the mixed good and bad in human nature characterizes what Melanie Klein describes as the depressive position. This marks the relinquishing of the idealization of the mother-child relationship, and is resisted out of the fear that acceptance of the bad will harm the good, which then cannot be repaired. Similarly, Freud speaks of our need to mourn the loss of our idealization of important relationships if we are not to remain "melancholy" about the necessary acceptance of disillusionment intrinsic to the human condition. This transition for the two-year-old is aptly described by Kavaler-Adler as "developmental mourning". The achievement of a conscious, independent, self-observing, and self-correcting self can now maintain crucial human relationship through a new capacity to perceive both self and others within their own complex contexts, and clarify and enrich that perception with the exchange of words. But this reality of choice and interaction is only achievable if we relinquish the idealization that still holds us to an oversimplified time we have outgrown.
The mother of the two-year-old is challenged to remain consistent- but consistent in what way? Human nature seeks a reduced, stable resolution of things, especially one that feels and seems good. The discovery that such a state is best approximated through the balancing of complex, contradictory, and changing realities is not the sort of consistency that was hoped for. Developmental mourning is involved in the insight that living itself is a complex, often paradoxical process, rather than an inevitable passage toward an ideal goal.

I completely agree with you that (romantic) duality should be the end all be all..

But I've been starting to see that it's less that others are ignorant and more that.. I'm the ignorant one...

hurts to write it.

[Ikite iru]

too complicated and time-consuming with little additional reward. most people here still think in very simplified terms regarding the functions (Ne is ideas and possibilities, Te is facts and data and such nonsense). not enough predictions that can be made. it's easier to just have a simple model that most people can fit in how they want. socionics is a lot of complicated terminology with very few predictions you can make with it that are actually concrete and valuable. "Vortical-Synergetic Cognition" pfff. show me how you can predict concrete developments in the world with the theory.

[Aster]

MBTI is more simple. It’s as simple as that.

[The Reality Denialist]

Ooh, socionics's foundation is pretty shaky.
MBTI at least serves good old BS packaged in shitty wrappings altough Keirsey came and probably bastardized it a bit. Socionics in turn is like a protein shake of miscellaneous stuff. What the hell is going with the latter one? Aushra was a part-time lunatic that compiled the thing. She had a few out of reality experiences apparently and sprinkled them right in. Then came the rest. The ones that hold her word as gospel (for example WSS), the ones that didn't give a shit about the groundwork and continued their own path but took the framework with them (Talanov is the number one) and then there are few sanitizers (Gulenko being one of them).

[Ikite iru]

you can perceive so many archetypes in people it really makes me doubt that any of these 8 functions work the same for every person of the same type. you have the sensible poet who is highly aware of other people's emotions and moods or the idealist that perceives injustice immediatly or the environmentalist that loves animals more than humans or the technophile who is obsessed with mechanic toys and technology or the neoliberal capitalist that cannot aknowledge climate change because it would threaten his ideology or the comedian that jokes around all day never taking life too seriously or the autistic nerd that spends 24/7 in a virtual reality just to name a few. how do all these tendencies manifest when there's only 8 functions to work with? in reality it's more likely that each function branches out in a myriad of ways that aren't even defined yet so you might as well stick to something silly like MBTI and have a few laughs at a party about it and leave it at that. ITR aside, how does a capitalist who calls himself a realist even get along with an artist? they simply don't. doesn't matter what type they have

[idiot]

MBTI says that this apple can go with the banana or the grapes, but probably not the orange or the watermelon, but hey, give it a shot and it might work out. Also, every one of the fruits and vegetables is awesome and cool.

MBTI is a lot like Astrology in that sense.

In contrast, Socionics says that you have one, fairly good shot at a fairly good relationship with one single type of person who is very different from yourself and the relationship works best if both of you are under terrific stress, and not so much otherwise, and it's downhill from there with every other type.

Socionics, in addition to being a bit harder to grasp, is not a "good news" kind of system.

I don't think its wholly bad news. I notice many people use these systems as excuses for weaknesses.

I was in 15 different relationships and they were all shit? It's because, as this "academic" system says, there is only one specific person that will mesh well with me. Thus I will keep up my hope, and blame nature for the way all the relationships went. If what you say is true (which I'm not sure is true, as MBTI and astrology also say there is one perfect match and a bunch of decent matches), then socionics is even more powerful in this regard. It promises an ideal, which people will chase, and keep their hope for.

If you subscribe too much to this ideal you might miss a shit ton of good opportunities in a grand chase after the ideal, perfect, best opportunity (kind of sounds like gambling lmao, except gambling requires action but this type of behavior is more appealing to people who don't like taking action. A kind of non active gambling, if you will).

It's applicable to other weaknesses.

I lack basic functional skills and can't do shit with my hands? I just have bad Se and Te, oh well.
I'm an asshole and I can't stop myself from making everyone in a 20ft radius dislike me? I just have bad Fi.
I am a social outcast? I just have bad Fe.
I went 2 weeks without a shower, and I lost 30 pounds from failing to remind myself to eat/drink? I just have bad Si.

You get the picture. I suppose its bad news because there's more of a degree of fatalism in the output. However, everyone here is not just enveloped in finding out ugly truths. People here are just attracted to this kind of fatalism (pointing towards this attracting more Ni users). So to many, it's actually good news. Especially towards people who have no interest in changing/developing as a person.

For example, notice the circus and mental gymnastics used when typing people whom others don't like. They toss them around from quadra to quadra, why? Because I'm supposed to get along with people in my quadra. I am certain of this and this can not change, thus they are not a part of my quadra (group). People create these ideals which they want to maintain no matter what, and they enjoy it, even if there's little freedom to it. Thus I think there is a distinction to be made between good news and fatalism, as to many, fatalism/surety could be good news (though perhaps not to you).

[idiot]

Kind of as a general reply, I meant this to point out the dynamic between input (the info put in to find out your type) and output (the details of what the system says about your type).

MBTI and astrology have simple input, and complex output.

Socionics has complex input, and complex output.

When referring to ambiguity, I meant it in terms of the input sense.

[Tallmo]

Socionics is about actually finding your real (jungian) type, and that can be difficult. MBTI is also about finding the Jungian type, and that is just as difficult as Socionics. But they claim that it's simple.

Even Socionics has simplified things quite a lot, but you still have enough information with the ITR to actually identify the types correctly and learn them from experience.

MBTI has done a lot of harm to jungian typology by misunderstanding things. In some cases the whole jungian essence of the types is watered down to the point that they are just talking about shallow traits unrelated to the real types.

Why MBTI is more popular? Lot's of marketing, commercialization

[squishycans]

I think it's because MBTI simply allows people to talk about how different they are, without any real limits on how far you want to take that understanding. There's a lot of wiggle room.

But Socionics is confining. It requires you to have enough understanding and self-awareness of yourself and the people around you to type everyone from a holistic (or holographic?) perspective. And how do you know you've done a good job at that? And it essentially confines everyone to their type and says that relations will be predictable. This is a lot harder to digest and you have to be okay with all of those premises to want to even try to think about it. It probably appeals most to people with NT thinking patterns, whereas MBTI appeals to everyone.

[SacredKnowing]

MBTI says that this apple can go with the banana or the grapes, but probably not the orange or the watermelon, but hey, give it a shot and it might work out. Also, every one of the fruits and vegetables is awesome and cool.

MBTI is a lot like Astrology in that sense.

In contrast, Socionics says that you have one, fairly good shot at a fairly good relationship with one single type of person who is very different from yourself and the relationship works best if both of you are under terrific stress, and not so much otherwise, and it's downhill from there with every other type.

Socionics, in addition to being a bit harder to grasp, is not a "good news" kind of system.

True History: the theory of personality in classical antiquity was the four humors theory (phlegmatic, sanguine, melancholic, choleric). Astrology coexisted with the four humors theory, and nobody saw it as a competitor. Therefore, astrology was never about personality. It was created as a theory to explain something else.

[one]

too complicated and time-consuming with little additional reward.

You are right. Quit this

[Ikite iru]

You are right. Quit this

I'm just getting started. The more complicated, the more interesting it gets. People need to abandon many stereotypes that typology introduced. They need to get away from openess=intuition or agreeableness = feefees. Most definitions are not matching reality

[DogOfDanger]

An empirically based system doesn't require you to buy into a theory which may be nonsense.

[one]

I'm just getting started. The more complicated, the more interesting it gets. People need to abandon many stereotypes that typology introduced. They need to get away from openess=intuition or agreeableness = feefees. Most definitions are not matching reality

Personally, I don’t have much patience for this

[Ikite iru]

Personally, I don’t have much patience for this

I don't do this to convince people in the present. I couldn't care less if some random person here figures out their type or not. I want to develop something that people in the future can use in a reliable and helpful way.

[Muira]

Socionics is less popular because it takes more than one braincell to comprehend, than just a trendy thing to add next to zodiacs.


But in all seriousness, Socionics was more popular in Russian-speaking countries, and was never fully translated and accessible in English until the internet became huge, and it isn't until recently when most of Aushra's works have been translated. While MBTI has been somewhat popular through the 60-70s, but didn't become so mainstream until the 2000s and even more in the 2010s with the rise of social media(especially in S. Korea, Iran, Brazil, Hong Kong, etc).

Because of the complexity and varying socionic models, there isn't a standard to really judge upon until SCS came around(the reconstruction of classical socionics). And it's gaining some momentum in the typology community, but not popular enough to become mainstream like MBTI.