MBTI inside

[Hannnah]

Hello, a year ago the ,,MBTI inside'' program came out. After watching this, I think the people who took part in it were pretty good at identifying their type according to MBTI. What do you think are their types according to socionics? I think your answers will help me better understand the correlation between the two theories. (Greetings from Poland)

Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...rDoGQxd3lnslDI

Episode 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmpm...index=3&t=616s
..... five episodes were released


and photo....

[Tallmo]

It's a flawed system. There is no need to understand any correlation. They are partly talking about the same types but often the system is broken and functions incorrectly /poorly understood. Just learn socionics/jung and you will learn the real types.

[welcometomania]

I really want to support this but there is obviously a big difference between genders and age groups that the organiser seems to casually overlook and those really bug me lol

[Park]

What @Tallmo said, basically. I would just add that Socionics is also flawed, just not as much as MBTI. We can apply the Pareto principle here to illustrate the main difference... in MBTI, 80% of all people identify with 20% of the types, while in Socionics the distribution is very close to linear. Myers-Briggs is a failed attempt at devising a system that's useful in practice. On the other hand, the balanced (and more true to Jung) interpretations of the IMs, plus the relational dynamics, give Socionics some basic credence and utility.

[Ave]

Both theories are flawed.

MBTI is bad because of typing methodology (tests are the most innacurate method imo, will only yield "accurate" results in cases where a person is an "obvious" example of a type (as per general descriptions), creating a feedback loop between what a type is supposed to be like and what the general descriptions say, rather than discover what the types are like through living examples).

Socionics isn't really one typology system. Much of what was written during the 1980s and thusly what people on forums like these know is also pretty bad, because socionics was in its infancy. The original authors such as Aushra and Weisband based their general descriptions on alot of guesses and hunches. The traits in general descriptions don't apply to every member of a type, so using them is unreliable.

I like SHS, Archetype Center, and Best Socionics, as their understanding is based on recent research. They are still all flawed, but they are the best living attempts at making sense of Jungian typology.

And please don't throw WSS at me. There is no reason to base oneself on "classic material" nor to consider that the the "classic" literature is best because it's "classic", in fact I would argue it isn't because of how new socionics was at the time.

I like Jung alot. His work should be discussed more around here. I'm not too familiar with it myself though, so I'll stop.

[Ave]

What @Tallmo said, basically. I would just add that Socionics is also flawed, just not as much as MBTI. We can apply the Pareto principle here to illustrate the main difference... in MBTI, 80% of all people identify with 20% of the types, while in Socionics the distribution is very close to linear. Myers-Briggs is a failed attempt at devising a system that's useful in practice. On the other hand, the balanced (and more true to Jung) interpretations of the IMs, plus the relational dynamics, give Socionics some basic credence and utility.

I don't disagree that both systems are flawed. But I don't really understand how a more linear distrubution of typings in socionics (which is not even the case by contemporary methods of type diagnostics, such as Archetype Center and SHS) is an argument in favor of socionics being less flawed since in itself there is no reason to suppose anything about the distribution of types in the general population (most of whom haven't had type diagnostics). I think this argument just "feels right" because psychometrics are meant to explain difference between people, and the more different we are, the more accurate the psychometrics seem to be.

I also don't think socionics is more true to Jung. It is in some ways, yes, but in others MBTI is more true to Jung.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

yall need some MBTI outside

[Tallmo]

What @Tallmo said, basically. I would just add that Socionics is also flawed, just not as much as MBTI. We can apply the Pareto principle here to illustrate the main difference... in MBTI, 80% of all people identify with 20% of the types, while in Socionics the distribution is very close to linear. Myers-Briggs is a failed attempt at devising a system that's useful in practice. On the other hand, the balanced (and more true to Jung) interpretations of the IMs, plus the relational dynamics, give Socionics some basic credence and utility.

My view:
Socionics is basically the only way to learn typology, unless you are very gifted and are able to understand Jung's Psychological Types without any prior knowledge. I do think the way Socionics describes the functions is a dumbed-down version of Jung's more accurate understanding of them. Jung is way better here. But on the other hand, it doesn't matter so much, because functions + model A + ITR and you have all you need learn to see the types and enjoy them. At least for practical purposes Socionics works just fine. But Jung has the deeper psychological understanding of for example the inferior function and its role in the psyche.

[WinnieW]

There is also MBTI step 2... a system with finer destinction.
It looks like a fusion of MBTI and Big 5 to me.

Unfortunately I know no free MBTI step 2 test, only test you have to pay for.