# Arguments for socionics being better than MBTI



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Jung has a bunch of anecdotes. Can't be more factually supported? lol. They aren't even facts. They are a guy sitting around telling stories. Facts? lol
> 
> 
> That's like me reading a bunch of stuff from the ancients to the present, making up a connection about it and creating my own psychology, and then saying it is factual cuz I have read stuff from guys 2000 years ago till now. What? lol. Thinking is not your strong suit.


Jung explains plainly why he wrote his books after studying psychology in East Asia. He says his psychological types are a result his studies of Eastern psychology. What part of that is beyond your grasp?

No you fool. He didn't study history he studied *PSYCHOLOGY* in Asia. Specifically East Asian psychology and Eastern philosophies of the mind. You shouldn't be one to speak on thinking. Passing opinion as fact isn't intelligence. That's just you believing your opinion matters more than others when in reality no one gives two squats about your opinion that you try to pass as fact. Lol. Smh.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Jung's works are based on study of thousands of years of Eastern psychology with some philosophy thrown in for good measure. So no, this is not based on an unsupported idea but literally thousands of years of evidence. Can't really get any more factually supported than that.


Wrong. If you can't prove it over and over and also the negation condition, it is not "factually supported" AT ALL. And we may never be able to because we don't even know how the brain works. So let's not start with facts. He also wrote a lot of black magic gibberish possibly due to psychosis. I love his gibberish but it is the truth.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

nichya said:


> Wrong. If you can't prove it over and over and also the negation condition, it is not "factually supported" AT ALL. And we may never be able to because we don't even know how the brain works. So let's not start with facts. He also wrote a lot of black magic gibberish possibly due to psychosis. I love his gibberish but it is the truth.


Jung has written less gibberish than what you just wrote here.  Proven what over and over and what negative condition? I know what you're trying to say but you're only dimly grasping at explaining criticisms of Jung's psychological types. Oh, and Jung is considered a valid part of Western Psychology and is the source for many valid psychometric tool when used as the Big-5, SLOAN, and a few others. So you were wrong about me being wrong to begin with.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

I guess you _could _deny all validity studying human mind has as long as we use human mind to study it.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Well... the problem with that assertion is that neurology, psychology, sociology and biology would all be considered pseudoscience using that criteria. Most people are just really bad at impartial reasoning not to mention actually using logic and reason.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Well... the problem with that assertion is that neurology, psychology, sociology and biology would all be considered pseudoscience using that criteria. Most people are just really bad at impartial reasoning not to mention actually using logic and reason.


Yea, unless you have quantitative studies, psychology, sociology do not claim they have "factual support". Neurology & biology is different v.V you can repeat the conditions and test it over and over, you have at least partial understanding, but yes most studies do not offer the whole picture but is observation. So did Jung, however, biology happens to be less complicated and more observable than the human psyche, at least you know how chemicals react, what proteins can carry those etc. so it is not pseudoscience.

You were being quite harsh to another preaching it is "factual support" that he base his studies on learnt Eastern philosophy. So, no I don't think my tone is inappropriate.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Lets try inversion here.

In what ways would MBTI be superior to Socionics?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

DOGSOUP said:


> I guess you _could _deny all validity studying human mind has as long as we use human mind to study it.


All of nature really. Is nature created by mind or is mind created by nature? 

Schopenhauer said, "The world is our idea." And Hegel said that nature was simply the expansion of mind into space.

Some people also support Biocentrism. That physics isn't the most fundamental science, but biology is because it is our medium which we view, or even create the world.

"We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off."

-Nietzsche


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Dedication said:


> Lets try inversion here.
> 
> In what ways would MBTI be superior to Socionics?


A good ground for starters and easy, makes you feel understood (as in figuring out why you feel out of place in this world as an INFP). That is really all. And if you did want to dwell in further it is kind of a negative because you would have to unlearn it or accept that it is incomplete.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> If anything, since both systems are unfounded, the simpler one is better because it has fewer levels of baseless claims. It is less wrong. I agree that Socionics fleshed out a bad idea better but it is still a bad idea. Bad ideas should not be so fucking complex. lol. They should be used as toys. Because that is what they are. Parlor tricks. You're like a person who makes a more complex Ouija board and pats himself on the back for being smarter than other people using the old Parker Brothers one. Ooh, your board has more details. *Big shit. It's still a Ouija board.*


I laughed! I think they need to make a system that isnt as rigid and is more fluid...but what do i know? I'm just a biologist/chemist...


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Well... the problem with that assertion is that neurology, psychology, sociology and biology would all be considered pseudoscience using that criteria. Most people are just really bad at impartial reasoning not to mention actually using logic and reason.


What parts of neurology and biology? Biology is applied chemistry


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Tad Cooper said:


> I laughed! I think they need to make a system that isnt as rigid and is more fluid...but what do i know? I'm just a biologist/chemist...


I like it. Typing is like that. The person being typed is that thing you put your hands on that moves around the board. All the people trying to type that person are the people with their fingers on that thing. The board and letters are types. The thing doesn't actually move by itself but others make it move.

"All mankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move."

-Ben Franklin


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

nichya said:


> A good ground for starters and easy, makes you feel understood (as in figuring out why you feel out of place in this world as an INFP). That is really all. And if you did want to dwell in further it is kind of a negative because you would have to unlearn it or accept that it is incomplete.


I think that's a valid point. I've seen my fair share of people who thought the MBTI description was an instant hit. Some of the same people couldn't get into the Socionics descriptions as they required some explanation.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Dedication said:


> I think that's a valid point. I've seen my fair share of people who thought the MBTI description was an instant hit. Some of the same people couldn't get into the Socionics descriptions as they required some explanation.


Yup! On the surface it is. To add to it, I think also, if you were to figure out personality types of a massive number of people, MBTI is gold. You don't need precision of details, you can just cluster them easily. Also, I think the certain stereotypes are true, such as INTPs being good at computer science. But I don't think it should be used as a tool to assess what jobs you can do because that would be too fascist AND you would be missing outliers with out of the box thinking.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

nichya said:


> Yea, unless you have quantitative studies, psychology, sociology do not claim they have "factual support". Neurology & biology is different v.V you can repeat the conditions and test it over and over, you have at least partial understanding, but yes most studies do not offer the whole picture but is observation. So did Jung, however, biology happens to be less complicated and more observable than the human psyche, at least you know how chemicals react, what proteins can carry those etc. so it is not pseudoscience.
> 
> You were being quite harsh to another preaching it is "factual support" that he base his studies on learnt Eastern philosophy. So, no I don't think my tone is inappropriate.


So you basically have a whole lot of nothing to say, because all of the psychometric tools I've mentioned are repeatable along the lines of the scientific method. I'm not the one here preaching about middle school level science. What's kind of dumb about your entire argument is that Jung's psychological types was simply a framework to be proven or disproven. There's nothing pseudo-science about it, other than some people mistakenly saying it is. What is the very definition of pseudoscience though is psychoanalysis, which doesn't have any measure of testability or repeatability.

No, your little emotional outburst wasn't appropriate. You didn't have much to say anyway, so there's really nothing to continue stating.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Tad Cooper said:


> What parts of neurology and biology? Biology is applied chemistry


Oh, I was never claimed that neurology and biology are pseudoscience. I was saying using DOGSOUP's criteria would categorize those fields as such. The statement that you can't run science of a study of the mind using the mind is just dumb. Humans create tools to test and confirm or deny phenomena. The mind included.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Scoobyscoob said:


> So you basically have a whole lot of nothing to say, because all of the psychometric tools I've mentioned are repeatable along the lines of the scientific method. I'm not the one here preaching about middle school level science. What's kind of dumb about your entire argument is that Jung's psychological types was simply a framework to be proven or disproven. There's nothing pseudo-science about it, other than some people mistakenly saying it is. What is the very definition of pseudoscience though is psychoanalysis, which doesn't have any measure of testability or repeatability.
> 
> No, your little emotional outburst wasn't appropriate. You didn't have much to say anyway, so there's really nothing to continue stating.


I am (removed for anonymity's sake) studying science. Your ignorant input is not welcomed. The way you hold on to illogical arguments is revolting. Besides, I honestly question your typing of yourself by your language. Te dom, in your dreams.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

nichya said:


> I am doing a PhD in science. Your ignorant input is not welcomed. The way you hold on to illogical arguments is revolting. Besides, I honestly question your typing of yourself by your language. Te dom, in your dreams.


Sure you are. Your appeal to authority is really believable now.  Anyway, whether you are or aren't. What you said was patently wrong anyway so I called you out on it. I don't use my education to try to claim to be an authority and neither does anyone else here. So we all go by what's written and you wrote a bunch of malarkey so I called you out on it. I hope whatever science field you're going for in a phd, it's not related to psychology, as you've proven yourself to be clueless in such a field so far.

Also, jumping to conclusions is also another logical fallacy you committed. Not to mention, irrelevant evidence and writing straight up gibberish. I hope your dissertation is of better quality than what you've written here thus far.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Oh, I was never claimed that neurology and biology are pseudoscience. I was saying using DOGSOUP's criteria would categorize those fields as such. The statement that you can't run science of a study of the mind using the mind is just dumb. Humans create tools to test and confirm or deny phenomena. The mind included.


I like it how you call it my criteria when I just pointed out a possibility.

"My criteria" would only apply to psychology and perhaps to some extent to sociology. Biology/neurology do not to my understanding focus so heavily on conseptualizing the human mind.

Thousands of years of study does not imply we have factual support of anything. The actual problem is how to accurately test any of these things when we often have difficulties defining these phenomenas to begin with. Mind is so elusive when compared to many other subjects of study. Even if we constantly recreate our methods and aspire to improve our understanding it doesn't mean we get to take anything for granted. This would include what Jung wrote and whatever eastern psychology and philosophy he was influenced by at the time.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> I like it how you call it my criteria when I just pointed out a possibility.
> 
> "My criteria" would only apply to psychology and perhaps to some extent to sociology. Biology/neurology do not to my understanding focus so heavily on conseptualizing the human mind.
> 
> Thousands of years of study does not imply we have factual support of anything. The actual problem is how to accurately test any of these things when we often have difficulties defining these phenomenas to begin with. Mind is so elusive when compared to many other subjects of study. Even if we constantly recreate our methods and aspire to improve our understanding it doesn't mean we get to take anything for granted. This would include what Jung wrote and whatever eastern psychology and philosophy he was influenced by at the time.


Criteria or possibility it was too limiting a condition to use.

Yeah and I'm sure professionals who help people using psychology during therapy and cognitive scientists who have made many strides in machine human user interaction would dismiss you as some-internet-dude-who-said-something. Because they'd be able to quantifiabley show you how you're wrong.

More denial and an appeal to complexity to further appeal to the unknown as a way of saying, "We just can't know so it's all wrong.". Logical fallacies abound in this thread as of late.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> Thousands of years of study does not imply we have factual support of anything. The actual problem is how to accurately test any of these things when we often have difficulties defining these phenomenas to begin with. Mind is so elusive when compared to many other subjects of study. Even if we constantly recreate our methods and aspire to improve our understanding it doesn't mean we get to take anything for granted. This would include what Jung wrote and whatever eastern psychology and philosophy he was influenced by at the time.


Also, I'm not sure why you think the mind is such an elusive place. I can state a few paradigms of the mind that I'm sure some scientist has validated but I haven't scientifically confirmed:

1) You desire companionship and camaraderie. - The mind tends to seek social situations or at least situations where you can exchange information with one another.

2) Past the physical needs, you also need other more base needs than companionship but on a higher level than your physical needs. - Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs covers this well.

3) You seek what you enjoy and avoid what you don't. - Right?

4) The mind focuses on pleasurable activities and wanders on non-pleasurable activities. - Time flies when you're having fun and time stands still when you're not. 

5) The rational mind, at times likes to be tricked. - Hence the popularity of magicians, comedians, people who tell unconventional stories and jokes, etc.

The mind isn't a mystery. The last great mystery of the mind is a unified theory of the mind. A theory that can bring together all of the disparate studies of the mind into one cohesive theory. That's been a field of research for about 30 years now and I'm sure someone will come up with one, win a Nobel prize for it and the study of the mind advances from it there. The brain isn't a dark a place as you think.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Criteria or possibility it was too limiting a condition to use.
> 
> Yeah and I'm sure professionals who help people using psychology during therapy and cognitive scientists who have made many strides in machine human user interaction would dismiss you as some-internet-dude-who-said-something. Because they'd be able to quantifiabley show you how you're wrong.
> 
> More denial and an appeal to complexity to further appeal to the unknown as a way of saying, "We just can't know so it's all wrong.". Logical fallacies abound in this thread as of late.


That is almost the opposite of what I said. I said we cannot take what is known for granted. That is not how science works. Just because something is considered known today doesn't mean it will remain that way. And please do clarify what is it that I am so wrong about, and what am I even trying to deny here...


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> That is almost the opposite of what I said. I said we cannot take it for granted. That is not how science works. Just because something is considered norm or know today doesn't mean it will remain that way. And please do clarify what is it that I am so wrong about, and what am I even trying to deny here...


I'm pretty sure Jung wasn't taking his studies in East Asia for granted, nor were anyone else who studied his works. Like he states in his own books, he was inspired to come up with his Psychological Types from his time in Asia. He had noticed distinct personality types from his travels which would be confirmed through his studies there. At the very least, you can consider his psychological types as a hypothesis to be confirmed or discredited. MBTI is not science because it wasn't created using the scientific method, however that's simply because it was created by a mother and daughter going off of Jung's work. Other tools like the Big-5, SLOAN, NEO-PI are all well, re-branded MBTI hypothesized in a more scientific way.

I'm saying you'd be wrong about saying that psychology is a valid field of science. Ask numerous people who work in the field. If you want hard numbers, try asking some cognitive scientists who work on improving the efficiency of machine-human-user-interfaces. Do you think you being able to type about 100x faster on a phone today than on phones from the 1990s is a coincidence? No, it isn't. That's a result of decades of research and experimentation.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> At the very least, you can consider his psychological types as a hypothesis to be confirmed or discredited.


Yes, it just so happens that is exactly how I will consider it.



> I'm saying you'd be wrong about saying that psychology is a valid field of science.


I agree but not sure if that was the intention.



> Ask numerous people who work in the field. If you want hard numbers, try asking some cognitive scientists who work on improving the efficiency of machine-human-user-interfaces. Do you think you being able to type about 100x faster on a phone today than on phones from the 1990s is a coincidence? No, it isn't. That's a result of decades of research and experimentation.


I am old enough to be aware of that. 
Don't see how it is relevant to me living in denial though.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> Yes, it just so happens that is exactly how I will consider it.


It just so happens that Jung's psychological types has created confirmed scientifically sound tests. Jung's work can forever remain a hypothesis, much like Einstein's time-space relatively and the theory of gravity.  What's important is how they can be applied. 



> I agree but not sure if that was the intention.


Sure.



> I am old enough to be aware of that.
> Don't see how it is relevant to me living in denial though.


Does this affect your life in any way? If so then yeah you might be living in denial. Otherwise, I was saying your argument was entirely based on denial and logical fallacies.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Decided I am not gonna derail the thread after all.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> I'm pretty sure Jung wasn't taking his studies in East Asia for granted, nor were anyone else who studied his works. Like he states in his own books, he was inspired to come up with his Psychological Types from his time in Asia. He had noticed distinct personality types from his travels which would be confirmed through his studies there. At the very least, you can consider his psychological types as a hypothesis to be confirmed or discredited. MBTI is not science because it wasn't created using the scientific method, however that's simply because it was created by a mother and daughter going off of Jung's work. Other tools like the Big-5, SLOAN, NEO-PI are all well, re-branded MBTI hypothesized in a more scientific way.
> 
> I'm saying you'd be wrong about saying that psychology is a valid field of science. Ask numerous people who work in the field. If you want hard numbers, try asking some cognitive scientists who work on improving the efficiency of machine-human-user-interfaces. Do you think you being able to type about 100x faster on a phone today than on phones from the 1990s is a coincidence? No, it isn't. That's a result of decades of research and experimentation.


Can you show me the studies Jung did in in Asia? Can you show me any studies he did that wasn't just story telling. MBTI is more science than Jung. Please. You have no argument. 


The reason scientists do controlled studies rather than rely solely on their clinical observations and memories as Jung did is because it is easy to deceive ourselves and fit the data to our hypotheses and theories. Another Jungian anecdote will help exemplify this point. A male "sensation type" and a female "intuitive type" were in a boat on a lake. They were watching birds dive after fish. According to Jung, "they began to bet who would be the first to see the bird [when it emerged from the water]. Now you would think that the one who observes reality very carefully--the sensation type--would of course win out. Not at all. The woman won the bet completely. She was beating him on all points, _because by intuition she knew it beforehand" (306-307, emphasis added). *One couple, one try. That's it. No more evidence is needed. The truth is that Jung doesn't know any more than I do why the woman was better at the game than the man. Perhaps the man lost on purpose as part of a misguided plan to seduce the woman. Who knows? But Jung is clearly begging the question with this and most of his other "observations of facts," as he calls these stories.


*_That was Jung's methodology. ​Facts? Science? lol. You clearly know nothing about these things.

So tell me, how did Jung know why that woman caught the fish?


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> ...rather than rely solely on their clinical observations and memories as Jung did is because it is easy to deceive ourselves


That link is gold.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

nichya said:


> That link is gold.


The easiest person to fool is yourself.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool."

-Richard Feynman

I posted a Feynman before where he was mocking stuff like this. Because he knows how hard it is find something out. To really know something. Because he has done it. And he knows these people haven't done their homework. I may as well post it again, it is short. He is saying what we and that link are, these guys sit down and make up shit on their typewriter and then claim to be experts in it. lol.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Can you show me the studies Jung did in in Asia? Can you show me any studies he did that wasn't just story telling. MBTI is more science than Jung. Please. You have no argument.


LoL, well I guess you have some reading to do:

Psychology of West and Religion West and East, published 1938.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung_publications

Knock yourself out. 



> The reason scientists do controlled studies rather than rely solely on their clinical observations and memories as Jung did is because it is easy to deceive ourselves and fit the data to our hypotheses and theories. Another Jungian anecdote will help exemplify this point. A male "sensation type" and a female "intuitive type" were in a boat on a lake. They were watching birds dive after fish. According to Jung, "they began to bet who would be the first to see the bird [when it emerged from the water]. Now you would think that the one who observes reality very carefully--the sensation type--would of course win out. Not at all. The woman won the bet completely. She was beating him on all points, _because by intuition she knew it beforehand" (306-307, emphasis added). *One couple, one try. That's it. No more evidence is needed. The truth is that Jung doesn't know any more than I do why the woman was better at the game than the man. Perhaps the man lost on purpose as part of a misguided plan to seduce the woman. Who knows? But Jung is clearly begging the question with this and most of his other "observations of facts," as he calls these stories.*_


Most people already understand the scientific method at a 4th grade level. 



> That was Jung's methodology. ​Facts? Science? lol. You clearly know nothing about these things.
> 
> So tell me, how did Jung know why that woman caught the fish?


 You can't even figure out what his methodology was? It's pretty easy to know what he was doing if say... you actually knew what he or you were talking about.

Also, I don't respond to unintelligible questions.


----------



## Chicoisking (Aug 12, 2016)

Jungs theory is nothing more than a theory. We don't have any proof of its validity. It can be debunked quite easily. Socionics and Mbti should be at most used for fun or just to see how your personality is put into a certain system. 

Scientist today don't know how the conscious works. There are many theories like Jung and while they can be useful, they have flaws. No scientist can find a final explanation for our human brain because our brain is too complex to be guided by four functions.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Chicoisking said:


> Jungs theory is nothing more than a theory. We don't have any proof of its validity. It can be debunked quite easily. Socionics and Mbti should be at most used for fun or just to see how your personality is put into a certain system.
> 
> Scientist today don't know how the conscious works. There are many theories like Jung and while they can be useful, they have flaws. No scientist can find a final explanation for our human brain because our brain is too complex to be guided by four functions.


Exactly what I said. This stuff is just for fun. If you think it is real you are a mark. There's a sucker born every minute as Barnum said.

Reminds me of an old psychic who was accused of being a fraud. She said that people dumb enough to believe her deserve to lose their money and she does not feel the least bit bad about it.


----------



## Chicoisking (Aug 12, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Chicoisking said:
> 
> 
> > Jungs theory is nothing more than a theory. We don't have any proof of its validity. It can be debunked quite easily. Socionics and Mbti should be at most used for fun or just to see how your personality is put into a certain system.
> ...



I know right! I mean socionics and MBTI is a good way of finding your strengths and weaknesses for careers and other stuff, if you think this is the answer to psychology then you are off. Jung only brought us a new angle to look at the conscious, not a solution to it.

Finding out the true nature of the brain is like finding the true nature of the space time continuum. There are many theories, and that's good, theories can help us obtain a solid answer. However we can't solely rely on theory to get us awnsers. We must connect it to what is real in order to find a solid conclusion. I mean it's fun discussing Jung with others, it's fun taking the test and seeing a personality type that accurately describes you.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@Scoobyscoob Wow, you used the wikipedia card. He was a psychiatrist, we are talking about his theories on personality types here. So what is the point of linking to every article he has written or referred to as a psychiatrist? 

If you delete the parts you are accusing people of ignorance and the parts you are bragging yourself, your posts have nothing of substance underneath. None.

At this point, I am thinking you are a wanna be ENTj kid or a troll.


----------



## Chicoisking (Aug 12, 2016)

Who are you taking too again?


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Chicoisking said:


> Who are you taking too again?


That may a question for the ages.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Exactly what I said. This stuff is just for fun. If you think it is real you are a mark. There's a sucker born every minute as Barnum said.


I think it has other value apart from fun. It can help people develop their own understanding and also lead into some interesting moments of revelation and clarity. Pretty sure I was well on my way to repress or devalue (perhaps a better word) all emotions when I first got introduced to typology. When I had to give it some thought in order to figure out my type I managed to improve my situation and general approach on life. I actually did myself and others a favor that way.


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

I'm not an ultra-expert in either, but from what knowledge I do have and the opinion I've formed from it, MBTI is trash in comparison.

My first issue with MBTI is that it's so heavily intuitive-biased that some of the sensor descriptions are just pathetic. I fit ESFP and SEE first of all. ESFP has a very, _very_ narrow description in MBTI though. I felt like it was completely missing the majority of my character. I found SEE in socionics and basically found the missing portion, I felt - it was so in depth. The sensor bias just evaporates away in socionics, which is great. It seems to understand that every type has its own depth to it.

There's also the way socionics looks at functions. Frankly, the MBTI setup is bullshit imo. Why would 8 prominent cognitive functions exist in the panhuman thought process, and yet every individual human only ever really use 4 except when they're stressed? That's just unscientific, makes 0 sense to me. Socionics actually explains that we use all of them, we just _favor_ particular ones, which is true beyond debate if you ask me.

And then there's the relationships. MBTI gives a vague description of how N's don't understand S's well and how P's should be with J's for romantic relationships, and that's about it for MBTI relationships. Socionics weighs in on how _every_ type gets along with every other type. Perhaps it's a bit rigid, but many of the patterns hold true, I find, and it's a very interesting and helpful construct.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

1) Model A is more accurate than Harold Grant's function stack.

2) *Aspects*/functions are *defined* in Socionics but functions are only approximately described in MBTT

3) Socionics has a theory about intertype relations 

4) Reinin dichotomies

5) Many schools, many theories... i.e. more "democratic"


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

It's not. It's Soviet propaganda, that, with the main idea being that everyone has all 8 functions (therefore 2 Ts, 2 Fs, 2 Ss, 2 Ns), attempts to indoctrinate people to communism.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Tellus said:


> In what way are an extrovert's ego and id the same? Can you provide a quote?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





"The words introvert and extravert have become part of everyday speech, often confused with ideas like shyness and sociability, partially because introverts tend to be shy and extraverts tend to be sociable. But Jung intended for them to refer more to whether the individual more often faced outward through the persona toward the physical world, or inward toward the collective unconscious and its archetypes."

"Repressed qualities are relocated feelings and emotions that were thrown into the depths of the unconscious, condemned to be projected in a shadow-play. To help keep repressed feelings safely tucked away, the Ego dons a mask (persona), a societal role that gives an impression of identity with the community. This simultaneously hides the repressed qualities, which are, instead, cast onto others (projection or scapegoating). The persona is a psychological construct designed to help one fit in with the local culture by covering the individual's uniqueness."

"Jung looked at areas of the mind that constitute the psyche, and the way in which they influenced one another. He distinguished the persona, or the image of ourselves that we present to the world, from our shadow, which may be comprised of hidden anxieties and repressed thoughts. "



ya da ya da ya da, (just copy pasted random texts because I couldn't find the exact thing I was looking for, I wouldn't be able to give you an exact reference as I don't keep track, but please feel free to browse)


What he actually says is extrovert's ego is their persona, such as, an extrovert will usually define herself as a mother or a doctor, teacher, some societal role and she seems herself as that persona. For the introvert, the persona is influenced by the an archetype (from collective unconscious, a long list). Please note that Jung uses a different approach to "id" so I believe he didn't exactly put it that way however reading Freud's and Jung's definitions you can see commonalities. It is just what id really would be the Shadow of Jung's but not quite. Though in some text of his, you would think the persona is an extension of ego in Freud terms but the real person is made of the unconscious. Either way, he believes a person is a sum of all.

How do you observe ego? or id? Unconscious only means that you use it unconsciously, not deliberately, you do not identify with it if you were to be asked directly but an observer will have not much difficulty or will see it as part of your personality. You might be talented at something but not like or prefer that. It is all about preference, unconscious doesn't mean some ether element or ghost. If you ponder about it, Dario Nardi believes he can observe your brain signals that hint at it  However, apart from all, unconscious might be the real drive of a person, consider the Freud's take of a constant battle of ego and id, but Jung believes you should accept and integrate this part of yours to become "self" or whole. And as opposed to the monster like take of Freud, he believes this is a fascination source to one's creativity for example. 

It doesn't explain why it doesn't apply to some introverts, it is just my idea and observation that I like to explain as the level of one's acceptance and integration of their unconscious differs greatly among people. I believe more reactive and image types are prone to be more fluent and have come to terms with their unconscious.

Model G is trying to go with the approach, if you would like to take a look, Gulenko's Model G


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Shiver said:


> Yet you are "fully certain" you know my type. How? Seems to me that you're rather content with this lacking theory because you apparently believe that you've eliminated "all possible bias" in this case, despite providing no better of a case than anyone else with a conflicting opinion and openly agreeing with a post asking how an online forum is supposed to capture my character.
> 
> Whether the theory is good or not, better than MBTI or not, is only a part of the picture. Either will only be as effective as the people using them.


As for the last line: this depends on the tools available for use. This is a big issue here.


As for the rest.

Why am I not surprised that you instantly try to turn this in a slightly personal direction?  I find this funny and quite predictable from you actually. So I do see some definite trend about you - you being prone to try and read stuff into the lines in a certain fashion, often in an unfounded way just like now assuming how I must be quite content with the theory (zero basis for this one from your part). Clear trend, regardless of what this means inside typology frameworks (which I do not find perfect, far from it... which is part of the problem of course). I didn't actually see a way to fully link this to type, partially at best. The rest of it would be due to reasons/factors outside typology.


So. I never claimed I eliminated all possible bias. Yep I did say I was quite sure on the typing from the data I'd seen but I never said I can't ever change a conclusion if I find data that shows an actually better one. I said _I don't think_ I'll change the conclusion - I often tell people that a strong argument would be required for that. Note my original wording was "don't think".


Relevant here also, I saw the main source of the frequent conflict is that I prefer to not wonder about unlikely possibilities until there is actual data showing there is a point to look in that direction while you don't throw them away so easily _and_ don't react well when someone does this. This would be one reason for the typing I gave you. And no, not because of personal offense, clearly I did an analysis of ways of thinking here.

As for the entire reasoning on your specific Socionics typing, beyond this, I don't recall you explicitly asking me to go into detail about my reasoning for it. If you want that, PM, I'm not going to go full off topic here.




> When I went to use this way of thinking with a certain socionics forum, they got maaad.


Who specifically got "maaad"? What makes you think they were "maaad" and not just disinterested in hearing about the topic? 

Now, I do want to say that I saw your fights with some of those people and I understand the frustration about how many of them tried to type you based on either a couple little ambiguous details or on vague impression that was never verified to be causally linked with any of the Socionics information elements or functions. I'm fully with you on how that's useless crap for typing.

I don't get too frustrated over it personally since I figured out how these people think, what kind of, so to speak, system each one I talked to uses. I used to try and understand where they were coming from and that part was quite a lot of time spent on it... 

So while I do not agree with many of your assumptions, especially when they are unfairly made, I do agree with how that "typing practice" is no good. I personally try to find strong and preferred information elements, and no this process isn't perfect - I'm willing to refine things and go outside the typology models too - and I never claimed it is, but I would like to think it's a bit better than assuming a type from an "impression" coming from two lines of what the person to be typed said.

Otoh... I've partially moved on from narrow typology frameworks since I not only noted where they offer something other frameworks don't _but_ I also noticed where other frameworks are superior even in some cases where typology wants to claim the best explanation. This mainly happens when using typology you (general you) get into explanations that are not directly causal enough and explicitly skip going deeper into why some things happen in someone's psyche or why some things happen in interaction between people.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Ironically, I think that statement is more true than Socionics. To believe a totalitarian part of the world created typings to sort their workers bees is just as plausible as Socionics being true. I would believe the former before the latter.
> 
> Take out Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" and apply it to Socionics. It is baloney. The first three blow it out of the water. Like, who are these guys? lol. Socionists. Their authority carries little weight. What do you have without "authorities" on Socionics? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
> 
> ...


1. I observed some things myself. Some of cognitive psychology research about ways of dealing with information aligns with some Socionics ideas. Does not mean the entire Socionics model is correct and I hope I do not actually need to point this out.

2. Debate is not prohibited or I have not noticed if it is...

3. I don't give a rat's ass about authority.

+1 And I don't see how you put so much stock into this authority argument of how Socionists are not authorities. This almost sounds like the opposite of what you were quoting from that link with regard to the third point and not relevant to the first two points whatsoever. Since you sound like you think it's enough to say Socionists are not authorities so then the theory must be all bullshit _automatically_. Nope, not automatically, it needs more reasoning to show that.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

myst91 said:


> 1. I observed some things myself. Some of cognitive psychology research about ways of dealing with information aligns with some Socionics ideas. Does not mean the entire Socionics model is correct and I hope I do not actually need to point this out.
> 
> 2. Debate is not prohibited or I have not noticed if it is...
> 
> ...



What material is there to deal with in Socionics? What is the only clay we have to mold with? These fuckin guys who just say shit. lol. Why is Model A true? Because a bunch of guys wrote it was true. What basis does it have besides that?

Give me all the evidence for Model A being true.

Seriously. How did these guys come up with this stuff? Was it sent down by God?


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

myst91 said:


> As for the last line: this depends on the tools available for use. This is a big issue here.


The last line is directly linked to the rest of my post. It would be a blatant mistake to consider it independently.

You attempted to define me within what you later describe as "narrow typology frameworks" while also saying that you are "fully certain" and still manage to give a typing that disagrees with my own. This is a great example of why it doesn't even matter if socionics is vaguely "superior" to MBTI if the process still doesn't hit the mark.



> As for the rest.
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you instantly try to turn this in a slightly personal direction?  I find this funny and quite predictable from you actually.


"Slightly personal" is your own view on it - could it be you're reading things that aren't there? Ah...no, you consider yourself better than that, don't you? What _exactly_ and _specifically_ constitutes something being "slightly" personal, anyway, as opposed to any other level of personal? You use this same sort of terminology in other posts, attempting to measure things. I expect that since you're so hellbent on specifics, you'll be able to answer this one. Maybe you can even show me the units by which you make such a measurement!

At any rate, what I said supports my point of the theory only being as good as the person using it after you decided to comment on my post. Don't want to be used as an example? Don't fail to offer imperfect support when you go to type someone. What is it they call it on 16types? "Battletyping"? A person might crucify you for it, especially if you don't get the point from previous threads - stay away from me and my comments. I should _hope_ that the result of dogging my comments will be predictable by this point.

Passive aggressive smiley also noted. "Predictable", as well.



> So I do see some definite trend about you - you being prone to try and read stuff into the lines in a certain fashion, often in an unfounded way just like now assuming how I must be quite content with the theory (zero basis for this one from your part).


I quoted you from where you said you were "fully certain" of my type within the context of socionics. If you want to say that you're not content with the theory, go ahead and think in that direction, but a very specific post like that certainly does not contradict the notion from the point in time when you made that post. Specifically, what I quoted was relevant to how I see you "warping things to fit", as is this part of your massively overblown response to my post. I don't think it's unreasonable to say you're content with socionics - _at least_ relative to MBTI - given easily found past statements on the matter (let me guess: "specific examples?!" no, we both know exactly what I'm talking about; your tactics won't work here). There must be some level of contentment if you believe yourself able to type me and others within the theory, especially considering you are "fully certain". Else I wouldn't expect you to make such bold claims, given that the theory is allegedly insufficient in your eyes.

Also, oops, looks like I just smashed your "unfounded" comment. If you're going to try to draw false trends out for typing, here's a tip: Don't try to deliver them as underhanded insults, especially if you've got skin to thin to deal with the response and aren't actually quick enough to keep up with the thinking of a person you know nothing about.



> Clear trend, regardless of what this means inside typology frameworks (which I do not find perfect, far from it... which is part of the problem of course).


"Clear trend" or are you just engaging in hypocrisy by reading into something not there? Maybe you're making "unfair" assumptions. Looks like hypocrisy to me. Or maybe you were "projecting", hahaha.



> I didn't actually see a way to fully link this to type, partially at best. The rest of it would be due to reasons/factors outside typology.


You didn't see it. Does that mean it can't be linked? Maybe this falls into a tool only being as good as the person using it. Of course limited skill with an ineffective tool would just compound the problem...this is how I see the majority of typology forums and you're clearly no exception.



> So. I never claimed I eliminated all possible bias. Yep I did say I was quite sure on the typing from the data I'd seen


You said "fully certain", not "quite sure". _Fully_ certain. Completely. All the way. No more doubt. If you don't believe you've eliminated your bias, why are you fully certain? You know what, maybe you'd better just send me _all_ of the data you're so _certain_ on.



> but I never said I can't ever change a conclusion if I find data that shows an actually better one. I said _I don't think_ I'll change the conclusion - I often tell people that a strong argument would be required for that. Note my original wording was "don't think".


So your original and persistent criticisms of me are that I tend to read into statements for things that allegedly aren't there, yet here you are preaching what you didn't say but what you think should have been known? Also odd that you'd quote "don't think" exactly but phrase "fully certain" as "quite sure" here. Interesting.

Also to note, "an actually better one" is obviously as subjective as it's going to get, given what I've observed from your interactions with others here. It won't actually matter if the data contradicts what you think you know - I find it more likely you'll dig in to save face, or perhaps from the arrogance to place your own thinking above others. I've seen your thinking hit here before with legitimate points and you didn't change your stance a bit.



> Relevant here also, I saw the main source of the frequent conflict is that I prefer to not wonder about unlikely possibilities until there is actual data showing there is a point to look in that direction while you don't throw them away so easily _and_ don't react well when someone does this. This would be one reason for the typing I gave you. And no, not because of personal offense, clearly I did an analysis of ways of thinking here.


Your "analysis" is deeply flawed, which is what I was saying in my rather short original post that you apparently failed to grasp the meaning of. It's entirely based on what you believe you know about me, which is ties in greatly to what FearAndTrembling said as well. You know absolutely nothing about my real life interactions, behavior, or "ways of thinking". I find it especially funny that you would think that you do after "liking" a post asking how someone on an internet forum is supposed to know my character. Seems contradictory to agree with that while believing you possess the ability to have such insight into a person you don't know.

You are also only considering my not throwing away "unlikely" possibilities relative to your own extremely limited scope of view. So is it me who exhibits a high level of examining potentiality or you who exhibits a low level (i.e. PoLR)? I've seen interactions on this forum to suggest that the latter is at least as likely as the former, if not more so. In essence, it's unsurprising that you would attempt to "type" me from your own shortcomings.



> As for the entire reasoning on your specific Socionics typing, beyond this, I don't recall you explicitly asking me to go into detail about my reasoning for it. If you want that, PM, I'm not going to go full off topic here.


Your reasoning on the subject doesn't have any value to me beyond entertainment because as I've said, you are familiar with only a very small, controlled aspect of my person. You don't even know my gender beyond reading into carefully placed statements to allow you all a conclusion. How's that for reading "into the lines in a certain fashion"? Even when I outright tell you people that I'm feeding you controlled information, you still manage to believe you've got the capacity for insight to "pierce the veil" somehow. It's laughable.

Too late, re: going "full off topic here". You chose to throw a multi-paragraphed tantrum because I dared to say that you don't know me well enough to type me and you took it personally. Boo hoo.



> Who specifically got "maaad"? What makes you think they were "maaad" and not just disinterested in hearing about the topic?


I doubt the chat logs still exist from when I first joined, but the reactions when I kept talking about a scientific approach were hilariously defensive. I think one of my favorites was the person who started talking about how science is a religion. That person even sent me a disgruntled PM after the fact.

It's really funny to me also that you probably are legitimately asking for who, specifically...as if you're entitled to that information when that post was quoting another user entirely. I'm not going to give you specific names because you'll just sit and nitpick them for any tiny little thing you can warp in your mind to conflict with what I said - I've seen this before.



> Now, I do want to say that I saw your fights with some of those people and I understand the frustration about how many of them tried to type you based on either a couple little ambiguous details or on vague impression that was never verified to be causally linked with any of the Socionics information elements or functions. I'm fully with you on how that's useless crap for typing.


And yet one or two of them managed to provide a more accurate likeness to me than you did as you asked for specific after specific because you are apparently lost without an instruction manual.



> I don't get too frustrated over it personally since I figured out how these people think, what kind of, so to speak, system each one I talked to uses. I used to try and understand where they were coming from and that part was quite a lot of time spent on it...


Or at least you seem to believe you "figured out" how they think.



> So while I do not agree with many of your assumptions, especially when they are unfairly made,


Not agreeing with what I say and simply calling it unfair offers no legitimate criticism of anything.



> I do agree with how that "typing practice" is no good.


It took you this long to get to that basic point. Wow.



> I personally try to find strong and preferred information elements, and no this process isn't perfect - I'm willing to refine things and go outside the typology models too - and I never claimed it is, but I would like to think it's a bit better than assuming a type from an "impression" coming from two lines of what the person to be typed said.


You're still just essentially forming an "impression" based on what you _think you see_ as "strong" and "preferred". It's no better than the people who have typed me "Ti-LII", "LXI-Ti", "ILI-Te 135", or whatever other permutations of elements I probably haven't seen of late. At least they all managed to come to the conclusion of "T", given that I made such an emphasis on it from the start. I could do the same thing with an alternate account and "F" elements to watch them twist that, if I wanted. Not only will people warp things with the theory, you can directly influence how they do it.



> Otoh... I've partially moved on from narrow typology frameworks since I not only noted where they offer something other frameworks don't _but_ I also noticed where other frameworks are superior even in some cases where typology wants to claim the best explanation. This mainly happens when using typology you (general you) get into explanations that are not directly causal enough and explicitly skip going deeper into why some things happen in someone's psyche or why some things happen in interaction between people.


Narrow typology frameworks or not, you'll never know enough real information about me to be of value.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Seriously. How did these guys come up with this stuff? Was it sent down by God?


It may as well have been, to a lot of the followers of it that I see. That's exactly the problem I had with them - you ask them for evidence and they'll mostly just cite those same people.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Dezir said:


> Socionics claims to be one step above MBTI, what are their arguments for that ?


Where does "Socionics" make a claim to be better than MBTI? Show some proof of your statement.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

I spoke to Socionics the other day and he was talking a lot of crap about MBTI.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

myst91 said:


> As for the last line: this depends on the tools available for use. This is a big issue here.
> 
> As for the rest.
> 
> *Why am I not surprised that you instantly try to turn this in a slightly personal direction?  I find this funny and quite predictable from you actually.So I do see some definite trend about you - you being prone to try and read stuff into the lines in a certain fashion, often in an unfounded way* just like now assuming how I must be quite content with the theory (zero basis for this one from your part). Clear trend, regardless of what this means inside typology frameworks (which I do not find perfect, far from it... which is part of the problem of course). I didn't actually see a way to fully link this to type, partially at best. The rest of it would be due to reasons/factors outside typology.





Shiver said:


> "Slightly personal" is your own view on it - could it be you're reading things that aren't there? A*h...no, you consider yourself better than that, don't you?* What _exactly_ and _specifically_ constitutes something being "slightly" personal, anyway, as opposed to any other level of personal? You use this same sort of terminology in other posts, attempting to measure things. I expect that since you're so hellbent on specifics, you'll be able to answer this one. Maybe you can even show me the units by which you make such a measurement!
> 
> At any rate, what I said supports my point of the theory only being as good as the person using it after you decided to comment on my post. *Don't want to be used as an example?* Don't fail to offer imperfect support when you go to type someone. What is it they call it on 16types? "Battletyping"? A person might crucify you for it, especially if you don't get the point from previous threads - stay away from me and my comments. I should _hope_ that the result of dogging my comments will be predictable by this point.
> 
> ...


Please leave out the caustic, and very transparent character attacks and heed the moderation message. The topic of this thread is to compare Socionics and MBTI, not your prior personal grievances with each other. Thank you for your understanding.



birdsintrees said:


> *Thread warning
> 
> Can we play nice people? If you can't, then don't participate. Please focus on debating the actual topic and respectfully allow for room to disagree or to have opposing views. Do not resort to attacking the person.
> 
> Thank you. *


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Shiver said:


> I spoke to Socionics the other day and he was talking a lot of crap about MBTI.


Socionics speak is still quite foreign to me. Hoping the OP could elaborate on what else the Socionics has stated lately.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Sylas said:


> Please leave out the caustic, and very transparent character attacks and heed the moderation message. The topic of this thread is to compare Socionics and MBTI, not your prior personal grievances with each other. Thank you for your understanding.


Half of what you quoted from me is in response aggression aimed at me. If the mods won't do anything about this user who has already been in one argument in this very thread and now is in another, what are we supposed to do but defend ourselves? I'd very much like if myst just stayed away from my messages entirely. It would certainly be better than that wall of text dumped instead.


----------



## birdsintrees (Aug 20, 2012)

You guys... how about his thread takes a time out.


----------

