| Questions & Answers |
| Question #1205261240 | Tuesday, 11-Mar-2008 |
|
|
| How many people here don't understand the difference between Myers-Briggs and Socionics? -- deedeedee |
|
| A1 Tell me what the difference is and i'll tell you if I for one understand the difference -- Anonymous |
| A2 The difference is there's a lot of ass holes that are fans of socionics while the fans of myers briggs are nicer. -- Anonymous |
| A3 i thought the difference lay in the theory. I think there's as many assholes in both systems, it's that there is more to discuss in socionics so things become more heated, people become more conceited over their understanding of it compared to others. -- Anonymous |
| A4 I think I just discovered the fifth dichotomy: Assholes (o)versus Nonassholes (n) -- Vlad - INTj |
| A5 Socionics is more indepth. -- yogurt |
| A6 i totally dont understand why the level of funtion is different in meyer briggs than socionics -- jas |
| A7 I started with type theory by finding the MBTI on the web and then quickly switched to socionics when I realized socionics is much better. For example, socionics is amicable to visual identification. The MBTI doesn't even touch something like that. I have also found that socionics theory is better than the MBTI in the real world, although still not perfect. The quadras are an amazing example of how to predict who can work well together in various situations, for example. I have argued occasionally with other contributors without backing down but I try not to be a bleepity-bleep :^) -- econdude |
| A8 A4 you are hilarious!!! That was great. XD -- Anonymous |
| A9 I have a more than basic knowledge of both systems, and they both have their merits. As A7 states, Socionics' theories about the quadra's are very interesting, as well as the ideas about intertype relationships. Personally I perceive Socionics as a less mature theory as a whole, though. The visual identification idea is not even supported by the majority of the Socionics community, and in my personal experience it does not work. Also as A6 states, I find the function order in all 16 types to be flawed in Socionics. As an example, Socionics' IEE (ENFp) should have extroverted sensing and introverted thinking in their super ego block (third and fourth function). Through self observation I KNOW both Se and Ti are subconscious functions for me, and instead Te and Si belong in my super ego block, as MBTI states. Just some thoughts... -- voot (ENFp) |
| A10 A9 you say that socionics should have Se and Ti as your third and fourth functions? It does. How do you know Se and Ti are your sub-concious functions? I'm not sure if I follow your definition here, but if they are in your third and fourth function places then socionics has that as concious functions. Socionics has the same first four functions as MBTI for extrovert types. -- Anonymous |
| A11 A10: Perhaps I did not express myself clear enough, but I know Socionics places Se and Ti as the tertiary and fourth function of the IEE type, and I am aware that the 3d and 4th are mainly used consciously. I'm saying Socionics types and MBTI types are not compatible. MBTI's ENFP has Ne and Fi in its ego block, and Te and Si in its super ego block. From personal experience I can tell I make use of Te and Si on a conscious and daily basis. I'm unaware of my Se use, and I only know what Ti is from descriptions on paper. -- voot (ENFp) |
| A12 A11 Could you explain to me in what way you use your Si and Te? I'm reading between the lines here and thinking that you are not really using them, but that you are seeking to create conditions were they can be achieved or experienced -- Anonymous |
| A13 @A12 Please stick to facts, and what I have written. On any respected site about Socionics and MBTI you can learn that the interpretation of the function order and use is fundamentally different in both systems. From a more general point of view, a personality with 2 conscious functions that both serve an 'information gathering' role, which are both focussed externally (Ne and Se) would be highly imbalanced. Those functions would compete with each other, and the Se function would never be allowed to develop under Ne's dominant presence. Listing up situations or examples of where I use Te and Si is irrelevant, because we make use of all of the 8 functions on a daily basis. A few examples won't show you which my 4 preferred conscious functions are. This site had adequate descriptions on Jungian cognitive processes, if you are interested: http://www.bestfittype.com/cognitiveprocesses.html -- voot (ENFp) |
| A14 A13 allow me to clarify: i'm trying to stick to your facts, but you keep contradicting yourself. You say that MBTT and socionic functions are not compatible for you. Why? They have exact same function order for extroverts (and you are an extrovert) so it is! Also, if you think you use Te and Si on a regular basis..of course you might, but it will be of a childish underdeveloped format. You will use Se and Ti more, although poorly. I am ISTp, and i've never met an ENFp who hasn't fed off my Si and Te, because there's is weak and accepting. It just sounds like you don't know what your talking about, and if you really do understand the functions, and you do use Si and Te, then your are not ENFp. Do I think your one personally? Your logic in the above posts, sucks, your tripping over yourself trying to be an encyclopedia of super id's etc, just don't try so hard, ok? -- Anonymous |
| A15 @A13 Heh, no need to behave personal, insultive and immature. Please check the link I have provided before stating I don't know what I'm talking about, when I say function order in MBTI and Socionics are not the same. -- voot (ENFp) |
| A16 I'm not being personal you're just taking it personally. Oh yes it's been such a long time since I looked at MB that i forgot how much of a mess it is. Yes for extrotim the first two functions are the same leading to same socionic type. If you think you use Te and Si then you haven't a clue about the correct functions, what your talking about and are RTRD. -- Anonymous |
| A17 ENFps are buoyed, propelled and sustained by Te and Si values, but the notion of ENFps having confidence in their own capability to correctly execute Te and Si actions to mold and shape reality is not in accordance with socionics theory, nor is it concordant with reality, imo. -- taco |
| A18 @taco: I never said I was confident in my Te and Si use. Situations in which I am confronted with my weak Si are quite frustrating. Though I agree that at times I am overconfident about my Te. That's a trait I have noticed in other (male) ENFp and ESFp types, by the way. But I wouldn't even know how to explain how Ti works, because it's almost alien to me. Same counts for Se actually, though being an extroverted function, it's easier to recognize when ESTp or ESFp friends are jiving on it. Bottomline is, personally I am convinced Socionics function order is incorrect. -- voot (ENFp) |
| A19 A17 exactly. Voot should be institutionalised -- Anonymous |
| A20 A18 how do you explain the concept of duality, if socionics has the functions incorrect? -- Bob |
| A21 @A19, Anonymous person: I fail to see how your last post contributes to the thread topic. If you keep your posts non personal and informative, you will get a constructive discussion going. Trying to make fun of a person or a point of view that opposes yours is considered a sign that you don't have any real arguments for a debate. The only thing you have convinced me of is that you are uninformed and bad mannered. -- voot (ENFp) |
| A22 Voot thats why I said what I said. Also, listen to Bob, at least he's making sense -- Anonymous |
| A23 @Bob: It would mean the current intertype relationship system displays the wrong types as duals. In the case of ENFp-ISTp for instance, I would not be surprised. It seems like one of the worst possible matches for both types. -- voot (ENFp) |
| A24 Voot clearly has no idea what he's talking about. It would mean all the intertype relations are wrong. Which is not possible if you have actually interacted with people and observed their play. It's quite possible voot hasn't interacted with people, as i do not know how much contact a he's allowed as he's been institutionalised -- Anonymous |
| A25 @A24, Anonymous person (ignoring the immature comments): I agree on your second statement, it would mean potentially all of Socionics intertype relationships are wrong. I think that some intertype relationships might be correct in reality, but the mechanics behind them are based on wrong assumptions. -- voot (ENFp) |
| A26 I find Socionics confusing when it comes to introverts. I am an INFj MB-the descriptions fit me 100%. In Socionics I come up INFx-the descriptions of INFj and INFp fit me half and half. I have a MB friend who is INFp-the MB description right on. She hasn't taken the Socionics-but I do see her to be half INFj and half INFp-yet not the same half as me. Another friend is MB INFj-she fits Socionics INFp perfectly, yet not fully the MB description. So, I see confusion with the two types as far as introverts. As far as extraverts-the descriptions seem the same in both. -- Anonymous |
| A27 The primary difference between MBTI and Socionics is that they disagree on the order of functions. According to the site voot posted a link to in A13, INTJ has Ni as the first function, and Te as the second function. In Socionics, INTj has Ti as the first function, and Ne as the second. In Socionics, NiTe is INTp, not INTj. There also seems to be some disagreement on the order of the other functions. This of course leads to MBTI people thinking that the Socionics Intertype relationships are just crazy. Voot, in A23, ENFP-ISTP seems like one of the worst possible matches to you, because it is - the people you think of as ISTP in MBTI (i.e. Ti Dominant, Se Auxiliary), would actually be ISTj in Socioncs, which is a Conflicting relationship - the worst possible kind. The main problem with MBTI and Socionics, and the reason there is so much strife between the two camps, is that we use the same terms to describe different things. -- Krig (INTj) |
|
|
| A28 Here is the killer argument. INTJ's apparently have Te. However, when you read Jung's description of Te, and you compare that to INTJ description, you see a type which doesn't use Te at all. You see a type which uses Ti. This is where MBTI falls down at a functional level. They've got it wrong, and socionics got it right. -- Cyclops |
| *Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of socionics.com* |
|
| Would you like to add anything? |
(
