Socionics is better than made out to be by some of you
Some of you, I've noticed, are really bad at typing people, and this would conclude the fact of you not liking socionics, especially not seeing use for it beyond the logic. A major problem is that a lot of you regard MBTI in your socionics efforts. Trust me when I say that the dichotomies aren't the same in both ...
|C1 In what ways are the dichotomies different? I would say that on closer inspection that they are indeed the same. In terms of typing, socionics has more tools to help people find their correct types (yet keep in mind so many people are mis-typed on MBTI as well as socionics). Of course the extra information in socionics can lead to a different form of confusion than the lesser information of MBTI, but to the same result, that of incorrect typing, and therefore empirical dubiaty of both. Once a person has correctly typed themselves, they find that they are the same type on both systems (include Kiersey with MBTI when I mention the two Jungian developments, that is XXXX equals XXXx). I would recommend that you read (if you haven't) proper MBTI books, and not MBTI internet descriptions. The reason for this is that MBTI has a more Te focus in terms of it's application (the descriptions are less theoretical and more about what the types do) and mainly that there is a business involved: one has to pay money to read the proper descriptions, were as internet MBTI are a free charging mis-mash description of the 16 types. I fail to see how the dichotomies are different (and therefore the types) on MBTI and socionics when they are based and hold the same principles of the Jungs' own dichotomies. I do agree that socionics offers so much more because it is correct on inter-type relations, and it also has a better interpretation of Jungs' functions, and it therefore the *potential* to improve further with it being on the correct building blocks. Of course, there are many mis-typed people on MBTI as well as socionics, which only adds to the mess that you speak of, and to the mess of how the two can be regarded as incompatible. See it that MBTI uses dichotomies and type descriptions, and socionics uses functions and inter-type relations. MBTI has better descriptions of types, a better attractiveability to consumers, and socionics has a better grasp of the functions and the inter-type relations. With this in mind, the divide needn't seem so big. I would say that proper MBTI type descriptions are more applicable than socionics descriptions; they are practical and worldly identifyable, but socionics meets the demands of intertype relations and function descriptions. -- Bobs your uncle|
|C2 Bob, do you have short hold memory problems? Basically you said the same thing 3 times Oh, and lets not turn this into MBTI vs Socionics discussions, the article is clearly not about it. -- Anonymous|
|C3 C2, 1. I don't think I have short term memory problems, but I would have to ask others for their input on this subject, as I wouldn't remember what I forget. I'll look into what you said, thank you for your concern for my well being. 2. My post isn't intended to be MBTI vs socionics. I do however dispute taking the article writers word for it when he says "trust me, the dichotomies are not the same in both theories" and I think any reasonable person wouldn't take this at face value. I posit that the types the article creater mentioned of his two friends are infact incorrectly typed on MBTI. For instance, the owner of this site believes that EXXX is the same as EXXx, and he's right (and of course this disagrees with the types the article creator mentions). It makes the whole argumentation of the article that of a strawman.I also agree that there are many poor typists in socionics, as there is in MBTI, which leads to different types being ascribed on both systems (as we see with 'Ryan'). It simply needs better education on both theories and then the issues the article writer mentions would not exist, and would therefore solve the article creators distress (and others like him) over people dismissing socionics. I am sorry you cannot see the nature of my post, to attempt to build this bridge if you will, so perhaps my saying the same thing three times wasn't enough for you? -- Bobs your uncle|
|C4 Bob, as of now I've already compared the two and I don't see a positive correlation. I see ideas that are one way in MBTI and ideas that are different in socionics. Your idea that the dichotomies are the same just doesn't seem correct. If the MBTI functions are the same as in socionics, then an INFp in socionics for instance, would be an INFP in MBTI. However one has primary Ni and the other has primary Fi. The fact of why the two theories are different is beyond that. For example, I know that a couple of my friends are INTJ and INxP in MBTI, and I also know that they are ESTp and ESTj in socionics, insisting that the dichotomies are different. I know that in socionics, extroverted doesn't mean talkative. MBTI is a different story. MBTI examines behaviors yet fails to come up with a reason behind them, whereas socionics examines the underlying thought process of personality and comes up with a reason for the behaviors. Myers and Briggs were just trying to make things more understandable, like if a teacher were to give a hypothetical situation to explain a point. They mixed things up to get one point across. It's like getting one whole side green on a rubik's cube. It's possible, but it doesn't account for the other five sides, just like socionics couldn't account for all those green blocks being the same exact blocks when more sides are solved. The terms change. Give me an MBTI book that reasonably explains what socionics explains in its own terms, then I'll think as to why they're the same. If you were to give me a book that simply converts MBTI reasoning into socionics, I'd tell you it's trying to forcibly merge the two into one, and I'd likely find socionics as more successful than a hybrid. -- Ryan(LII)|
|C5 "And if that's the case, leave your opinions of it to yourself. Because you are not only criticizing this theory, but you are criticizing people behind it, people like me, and the people who can see the correlations, and you're not giving any constructive criticism or reason besides that "you can't understand it." If socionics is based on this thought it sounds like a really closed system based on opinion. You just seem tired of people bashing your work, but it doesnt make your work any more correct and make everyone else wrong. You seem like you are trying to be forceful of your opinions or judgements into the external world. This may be to extreme P for some, but what if they are both wrong and both right and need to be combined to become accurate? Can you not believe in portions that fit what you see at which point you could actually start to merge both. You seem to make judgments based off of unknowns "I'd likely find socionics as more successful than a hybrid." To me this type of thinking can steer theories. We need criticism to keep this kind of thinking at bay that one thought is better than another. -- ISTP helping someone off there high horse|
|C6 I have not found socioncis to be correct about ANY of my relationships, with the exception of one relationship of identity (and, let's face it, relationships of identity are the easiest to guess how they go- in fact, i think mbti and socionics have similiar descriptions for the relationship between two people of the same type). While it is possible that for some of these people I mis-typed them, I've tried it on multiple people and you'd think that at least one of them I'd type correctly and get a realistic response. My current opinion of socionics is that it's a lot like Plato- you take a bunch of things that /sound/ like they make sense and assume that they're correct, then you selectively choose evidence that supports your conclusion. I'd like to know if Socionics relationship theory has EVER been properly tested, especially Dual relationships. No, anecdotal evidence from a handful of people with happy dual relationships does NOT count. -- Anonymous|
|C7 What this article amounts to is: "I know everyone else who has studied Socionics vs. MBTI has concluded that Socionics is bullshit and MBTI is more correct, BUT you are all wrong and I am right because my experience shows that Socionics is better and I refuse to believe otherwise." So if you read the whole article before reading this, I feel sorry for you. I hope this helps -- Howei|
|You can always give your own opinion in a form of article too if you think this article is not worthy.|
|C8 "I know that in socionics, extroverted doesn't mean talkative•are open and often talkative" Ryan (LII) Ryan, this is from the definition of socionics E and I from this site: E: •are open and often talkative I: •often appear reserved, quiet and thoughtful. So you're wrong. I'm actually starting to change my opinion on socionics inter-type relations, I think it actually hinders peoples ability to interact, rather that assist it. Ryan, provide studies that we can read which shows that socionics actually works. -- Bob|
|Would you like to add anything?|
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.