The Introverted Paradox
Myers-Briggs and Socionics are both right; the former identifies what we see in the personality of others while the latter identifies more what people see sometimes in themselves.
Socionics classifies the true order of dominant functions while Myers-Briggs classifies the order of dominant observed functions. In ...
|C1 I've heard people strongly agree with both arguments. What is the evidence that socionics is right? -- Anonymous|
|C2 C1, I have not conducted psychological studies to verify scientifically one or the other, although Socionics presents a structure that appeals to my engineering logic. My articles are based simply on personal observations as a long-time manager of people, and in these observations, I have found that M-B descriptions have better described the behaviour of people that I have observed from afar. I find that Socionics is somewhat weak on descriptions in general, which is a reason why I remain sceptical about VI. However, when I have gotten more familiar with people, particularly introverts, and when I have observed the interactions of types, I found that Socionics was on the money. Why would most people be interested in type if not for social understanding? M-B is adequate as a classification system but doesn’t serve my needs. For a manager, personal interaction in the workplace must be understood, and the Socionics type structure has proven to me to be the best litmus test for putting teams together or pairing people. -- I/O|
|C3 Well stated! Important to encompass both systems for a better understanding. Although the advantage of socionics in it's correct labeling of the order of the 4 functions both i and e in a particular person, is how it makes for a much easier and clearer structural form or model especailly for key information on inter-type relating. As socionics deals with the actual order verses M/B which defines personality type based on personal expression of the functions which in introverts we know they appear to lead with their second function. I believe it makes socionics more reliable for indentification and less confusing, since we can attempt to identify ones primary function regardless of what they express simply by paying more attention to the content of the expression especailly when dealing with introverts. Perhaps this is why the inter-type relating is so accurate, as I believe the inter-type relations information is what sets socionics apart. Socionics is all just very well thought out. Experience has shown me that the socionics model for intertype relations is best regardless of attraction to particular types. Very helpful for avoiding unworkable scenarios and relationships. As a whole socionics just makes it easier to understand personality type. -- ENTJ |
|C4 I've been trying to apply the socionics theory in my day to day interactions. I'm finding it some what difficult to identify the types of others and I'm inclined to say it is because I'm not sure exactly what type I am. At this point I'm having the most trouble identifying with my I/E. Maybe one of you could answer: in what context do you define your inborn I/E? (i.e.: I have an easy time talking to most people, have a wide circle of acquaintances, enjoy spending time in large groups but I find myself easily drained and not much to talk about). Can someone clarify this for me? Thanks. -- xnfp|
|C5 C4, I understand the confusion, being an INTj. When my extroverted function is pushed to the fore, I feel that I exhibit the traits of an ENTp, especially when I have to do activities like give presentations. However, my fundamental introverted temperament is not easily obscured from others, while my output oriented nature can often be confused due mostly to the fact that I do not like to make spur-of-the-moment decisions. From an observer perspective, it is much easier to confuse the introverted and extroverted nature of my functions because they would only differ in their perspective. Hence, my confusion has always been between being an extrovert or introvert (E or I), while for others, the confusion stemmed around me being input or output (p or j) oriented. -- I/O|
|C6 Agree with both systems being right in their own way, but strongly disagree with the simple IXXj to IXXp switch for introverts, and no switch for extraverts. Conversion from MBTI to socionics is an absurdity. It's like converting kilograms to centigrades. -- Anonymous|
|C7 C6, I agree that the two systems of classification are not that simple to compare; I was only trying to point out what I thought was the fundamental source of the difference. Once one has chosen that the extroverted function leads rather than the dominant, the rest of the analysis blooms somewhat like a fractal pattern. I think the concepts of extroverted and introverted in both systems are flawed somewhat; I use these words myself only because I'm trying to explain my concepts to people who are entrenched in either of the systems. I have also recognized that this method of explanation is flawed but most would not likely understand (or shut off completely from listening to) my concepts if I approached it from a control system perspective. I wonder if the owner of this site introduced “p” and “j” simply as a vehicle to explain Socionics theory to MBTI proponents; the original Socionics nomenclature doesn't have them, and I would agree that they shouldn't really be there. -- I/O|
|C8 In the past I have fought my introverted nature by means of my second function, Te. It's taken time to realise I can be introverted in nature and interaction - people appreciate Si dominant as it doesn't tread on others toes. It is perhaps not the best for instant recognition, but working life isn't a sprint. Ignore the need to engage second function excessively if you are introverted, and IP, it leads to mistakes and slip ups! Jungs already gave advice to IJs. -- Anonymous|
|C9 MBTI is illogical! IF, in a nutshell, -Se is perceiving the concrete external world as it is now -Si is perceiving the concrete external world in a "subjective" way -Te is organizing things so that they work efficiently -Ti is classifying and analysing things -Fe is directing appreciations towards the external world, i.e expressing one's feelings -Fi is appreciating things and acting according to one's ethical view of the world Then, -Who is organizing and creating things which work according to one's view of the world? is it the the "inspector" or the "crafter"? I think it is the "crafter" so that the "crafter" is SiTe! -Who is classifying and analysing things as they are? the "inspector" or the "crafter"? I think it is the "inspector" so that the "inspector" is TiSe! -Who is is concretely expressing one's feelings according to one's subjective view? the "protector" or the "composer"? I think it is the "composer" so that the "composer" is SiFe! -Who is acting according to one's ethical view of the concrete needs of others? the "protector" or the "composer"? "..." are Kersey's definitions for MBTI types. It's why I believe the MBTI is wrong and Socionics is correct about "introverted S-types". -- piccolo_michel|
|C10 C9, I prefer the Socionics classification because it can be made to dovetail into my perception of the system structure of type. However, both classification systems seem to be constructed by throwing observed behaviours into boxes; they only differ on how they label their boxes, which affects type descriptions. Neither seems to take a true systems approach but they are right in so far as dumping the proper stuff into the boxes as they are respectively labelled. Square boxes may very well be more logical than round boxes but one has to step outside them to truly define a complete system. -- I/O|
|C11 This is really interesting. Here's a little question though, that this article only confused me about more. I scored as INTj on both MBTI and socionics, but as stated, that means that my functions are kinda screwed up. What does this indicate? It can't mean that I just don't change no matter what position I'm in because it would indicate that I have two totally different sets of functions. If anyone has something to say about this, please do... -- Vira Q.|
|C12 To C11 This is quite possible as functions don't have the same definition in Socionics and MBTI. Personally I usually score as ISFJ on MBTI (SiFe) and ISFj on Socionics (FiSe). These systems are very different. However my opinion is that Socionics is more in agreement with its own definitions than MBTI which I find to be often illogical. -- piccolo_michel|
|C13 C11, when I first started taking type tests, they never worked that well for me, perhaps because of my interpretation of some words and phrasing. One has to precisely interpret the questions, phrases and or words of the author; some of them I have found somewhat ambiguous and with others, I was on the fence as to which applies more to me. Also, one has to take the proper perspective of oneself, which also has to be precisely that of the author of the test. An incorrect answer can sway an assessment. To truly know oneself or another takes a lot of objective study – certainly more than just a test. Online tests really need to separate the assessment of function (indicated by E, I, p, and j) from the assessment of preferences (indicated by F, T, S and N), which they currently don't seem to do because neither system has correctly defined function. -- I/O|
|Would you like to add anything?|
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.