# Is it just me or do socionics make no sense?



## Mirabella (Sep 2, 2012)

Hey, I am new here and thought it was good idea to try and look more into Briggs Myers to get a better understanding about my relationships etc..well actually also a useful tool to consider when I been having a few concerns lately and maybe something I could learn from..but it just makes no sense. Two of my closest friends I have been friends with for around 5 years. They both familiar with Myers Briggs and tbh their claims of being - ENTJ and ESFP..make perfect sense to me!

I looked up the compatabilty and I have had concerns with m ESPF friend, but it said that the ISPF..is likely to make the ESPF feel bad if they are not centre attention in company, or if they hold back warmth etc and fear the ISPF will make an unexpected move in the friendship . But to be honest.. we hardly are ever in other company! she has lied to me about events she never invited me to and said folk did not like me, but still wants to be my best friend! she puts me down in front of her friends and when i bring it up.. she does her "performing" and dramatic affection to say aww i would never hurt you..and I to be honest, as the introvert get confused by her moves and am too shy to let her know how upset it is making me when she lies about things. If anything, I have confided a lot in her and she says she knows I can be shy but that I can always trust her- but lately I am never sure of her sincerity. she admits she is a flirt, but she is very tactile with people and flirty and starting to thinkif anything am more suspicious of her than her of me. she confides a lot to me, but at the same time I feel I need distance when I am unsure and don't want to get hurt. she says she loves me as a friend because of how "kind and selfless" i am but i just feel if this were true why do I feel I am there in a crisis and then forgotten about..she is an extrovert but we are both SPF..so surely we are not so different? She is very emotional and sensing- but tbh her SFP is often about her and her troubles..when it comes to others I feel whether it is just me or others, it's her telling stories, regailing a group ...I was shocked to see that me the ISPF may have her worried and in a vulnerable position. could this be true? As I really do not often see where I stand with her at all. she is intuitive...like she comes across knowing it all and is unbelieveably intelligent..but..she also is driven emotionally by things she wants, loves and not having them seem to be something that really upsets her. But I am mystified that as I try to be encouraging, supportive, not overbearingly - yet complimentary (to keep her vanity in check!) could be upsetting her. :/ Or so socionics would have it!


----------



## Perturabo (Jan 14, 2012)

I wouldn't put much stock in type based relationships - there are too many factors of personality to account for.

Furthermore, socionics uses a different, eight function model, as well as different definitions for each function so an ISFp in socionics isn't necessarily an ISFP in MBTI.

Personally I believe that socionics is flawed because it deviates from the basis of the cognitive functions, and trys to define type interaction but I'm sure some will disagree.


----------



## B k1dd0 (Jun 27, 2012)

I am not only suspicious about socionics intertype relations, but also with the individual descriptions. If people can fail so hard at a single description of a type, I highly doubt their capability to predict how different types are going to behave around each other. also, some of the people who wrote these articles do not sound professional in the slightest. 

I would ditch her...sounds like too much work to keep her and she comes across as emotionally selfish. Bs tolerance is zero. Or, you could ask for some alone time to sort things out. It's your call though. 
Not all esfps are like that (some are tough and selfless), but what the third poster said was interesting.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Mirabella said:


> Hey, I am new here and thought it was good idea to try and look more into Briggs Myers to get a better understanding about my relationships etc..well actually also a useful tool to consider when I been having a few concerns lately and maybe something I could learn from..but it just makes no sense. Two of my closest friends I have been friends with for around 5 years. They both familiar with Myers Briggs and tbh their claims of being - ENTJ and ESFP..make perfect sense to me!
> 
> I looked up the compatabilty and I have had concerns with m ESPF friend, but it said that the ISPF..is likely to make the ESPF feel bad if they are not centre attention in company, or if they hold back warmth etc and fear the ISPF will make an unexpected move in the friendship . But to be honest.. we hardly are ever in other company! she has lied to me about events she never invited me to and said folk did not like me, but still wants to be my best friend! she puts me down in front of her friends and when i bring it up.. she does her "performing" and dramatic affection to say aww i would never hurt you..and I to be honest, as the introvert get confused by her moves and am too shy to let her know how upset it is making me when she lies about things. If anything, I have confided a lot in her and she says she knows I can be shy but that I can always trust her- but lately I am never sure of her sincerity. she admits she is a flirt, but she is very tactile with people and flirty and starting to thinkif anything am more suspicious of her than her of me. she confides a lot to me, but at the same time I feel I need distance when I am unsure and don't want to get hurt. she says she loves me as a friend because of how "kind and selfless" i am but i just feel if this were true why do I feel I am there in a crisis and then forgotten about..she is an extrovert but we are both SPF..so surely we are not so different? She is very emotional and sensing- but tbh her SFP is often about her and her troubles..when it comes to others I feel whether it is just me or others, it's her telling stories, regailing a group ...I was shocked to see that me the ISPF may have her worried and in a vulnerable position. could this be true? As I really do not often see where I stand with her at all. she is intuitive...like she comes across knowing it all and is unbelieveably intelligent..but..she also is driven emotionally by things she wants, loves and not having them seem to be something that really upsets her. But I am mystified that as I try to be encouraging, supportive, not overbearingly - yet complimentary (to keep her vanity in check!) could be upsetting her. :/ Or so socionics would have it!


read it fully and it ends up making sense, I thought of ditching it the first time I came across it.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

This is type relationships from an MBTI frame.

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...-type-relationships-you-not-about-dating.html

Socionics have a lot of issues in my opinion, however they have some interesting insights no doubt.
But making a system that is so similar to MBTI only leads to confusion and difficulties.
The fact that it uses seemingly the same labels in slightly different ways leads to all sorts of problems.
It doesn't serve anyone, if you are going to reinvent the system, at least make your own god damn labels.
Don't go around naming apples oranges and oranges apples, that is just bad form.

When it comes to the eugenics aspects, well anyone feel up for defending eugenics??? XD
Why not just admit stupidity right away. }:-D


----------



## xXDominoXx (Aug 18, 2012)

Socionics is kinda crap. It has a few good points, but mostly it's garbage, IMO.


----------



## Luftkopf (Apr 11, 2011)

I've looked at Socionics a few times, and each time I look at it, it seems even more bizarre than the last time! I don't bother wasting a single moment considering it anymore.


----------



## Wendixy (Mar 1, 2011)

If you got your info from ₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪, then no wonder you think it makes no sense.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Wendixy said:


> If you got your info from ₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪, then no wonder you think it makes no sense.


Thank you so much for pointing this out, I was hoping someone would. 

Lots of people don't like socionics because there isn't a lot of organization as to what literature is good and bad, and it's unfortunately a lot more mechanical and complex than MBTI. It gets a lot of one-looks from people who quickly write it off if it doesn't strike a nerve right away like MBTI does, but the system is in fact quite good. Socionics.com is a really bad source. Try this instead, if you're really interested in learning about it. 

Socionics tends to catch the attention of Ti and Ni dominant users, so maybe it wouldn't be as interesting for ISFP. The Ti people often think it's very different from MBTI, the Ni people tend to think the functions are the same between the two. We're working on getting a socionics subforum going to hopefully get rid of some of the misconceptions, like many that have already invaded this thread.


----------



## B k1dd0 (Jun 27, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Iit's unfortunately a lot more mechanical and complex than MBTI. It gets a lot of one-looks from people who quickly write it off if it doesn't strike a nerve right away like MBTI does, but the system is in fact quite good. Socionics.com is a really bad source. Try this instead, if you're really interested in learning about it.


Whoa, the other site is very well written, and it has good ideas. I'll look into it more.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Exarch said:


> Personally I believe that socionics is flawed because it deviates from the basis of the cognitive functions, and trys to define type interaction but I'm sure some will disagree.


Correct. A few basic assumptions leading to conclusions too far.




Wendixy said:


> If you got your info from ₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪, then no wonder you think it makes no sense.


There is no official best source, nobody agrees on this issue. IMO, Wikisocion isn't a lot better than that site. It gets into typism just as much.




LXPilot said:


> Thank you so much for pointing this out, I was hoping someone would.
> 
> Lots of people don't like socionics because there isn't a lot of organization as to what literature is good and bad, and it's unfortunately a lot more mechanical and complex than MBTI. It gets a lot of one-looks from people who quickly write it off if it doesn't strike a nerve right away like MBTI does, but the system is in fact quite good. Socionics.com is a really bad source. Try this instead, if you're really interested in learning about it.
> 
> Socionics tends to catch the attention of Ti and Ni dominant users, so maybe it wouldn't be as interesting for ISFP. The Ti people often think it's very different from MBTI, the Ni people tend to think the functions are the same between the two. We're working on getting a socionics subforum going to hopefully get rid of some of the misconceptions, like many that have already invaded this thread.


The problem is not it being mechanical. It is good enough to be interesting but not good enough to be useful in helping communication between people. MBTI does the job fine without the extra complexity.

I like some things in Model-A itself but I do not use any of the conclusions in practice as they are unreliable.

Btw I don't know if your observation about Ti vs Ni is correct, but it's funny because I have both Ti and Ni, and it took a bit of time for me trying to reconcile the two different approaches in two different ways (Ti vs Ni). Ti approach won out eventually by me deciding they were different systems. And yea, they are...


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Correct. A few basic assumptions leading to conclusions too far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you refuse to get typed in it?
I reckon you are in the pragmatist club, some kind of extroverted one.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> So you refuse to get typed in it?
> I reckon you are in the pragmatist club, some kind of extroverted one.


Well I did type myself while discovering the system if that's what you are asking about.

Not a bad guess btw  (SLE-Ti)


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> The problem is not it being mechanical. It is good enough to be interesting but not good enough to be useful in helping communication between people. MBTI does the job fine without the extra complexity.


Nothing here - including Jung - is anything more than a model. I don't think any are "better" than others, because the way you use yours is different than the way I use mine, and I don't really care about learning to use them the way you do, and I'm sure it's the same way for you too. 

Reasonable people don't use socionics to "predict" anything. They use it to speculate possible reasons for a reaction, to back up sentiments or thoughts they have on a relationship after they have happened. Sometimes I'll "project" a bit, but with the intent of adjusting my own communication to make communication in potentially good relationships better, or to avoid pitfalls here and there. 

MBTI does a mickey mouse job with this in terms of the CF's because it categorizes people into one-dimensional categories, black or white, then makes really broad, general statements about the way their behavior looks to the outsider. Most of the descriptions make it look like all, or most people of the same type have the same motivations with which to use their functions, which is wrong. You're less likely to have your thumb up your ass in your own default perceptions if you understand how they will be perceived by other people based on Model A, because Model A offers more options to pinpoint in analyzing a reaction within a relationship.



> Ti approach won out eventually by me deciding they were different systems. And yea, they are...


Lookey there, Ti is your second strongest function and Ni among your weakest in most theories.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Nothing here - including Jung - is anything more than a model. I don't think any are "better" than others, because the way you use yours is different than the way I use mine, and I don't really care about learning to use them the way you do, and I'm sure it's the same way for you too.


Models fitting reality better due to having better predictions are better models. Simple as that.

I understand you may just like playing around with theories, that's okay too but please understand that some people try to actually use socionics as it's being advertised with the promise of practical application.




> Reasonable people don't use socionics to "predict" anything. They use it to speculate possible reasons for a reaction, to back up sentiments or thoughts they have on a relationship after they have happened. Sometimes I'll "project" a bit, but with the intent of adjusting my own communication to make communication in potentially good relationships better, or to avoid pitfalls here and there.


I dislike speculation if it results in too many errors. I have tried to use socionics in this manner you describe here and I found it didn't help much. 




> MBTI does a mickey mouse job with this in terms of the CF's because it categorizes people into one-dimensional categories, black or white, then makes really broad, general statements about the way their behavior looks to the outsider. Most of the descriptions make it look like all, or most people of the same type have the same motivations with which to use their functions, which is wrong. You're less likely to have your thumb up your ass in your own default perceptions if you understand how they will be perceived by other people based on Model A, because Model A offers more options to pinpoint in analyzing a reaction within a relationship.


Many socionics type descriptions and users etc. also focus too much on black-white categories and sweeping generalizations about types. MBTI itself also does not have to be about this black-white crap, nor does socionics. That's just the wrong way of thinking about these systems. I do agree in terms of that.

I don't see those options in practice offered by Model-A though. I mean, on a theoretical level it's all fine and dandy, it even makes a lot of sense to me!, but 1) none of it is proven, none of it has been examined in a proper empirical way to check for actual existence of correlations and for prediction strengths, as far as I know. 2) there is no good empirical way to type people properly. So it's all ridden with issues when trying to apply it in practice. At best, it's just inefficient use of time with a bit of help here and there possibly, though.

Btw I do know what sort of stuff certain people don't like about me exactly and I knew that before socionics too. But it doesn't make me more accepting of such criticism just because I understand how they see it differently in a theoretical way. I always thought direct, honest and open communication was the best to resolve issues and if someone can't handle that, then I can't sort out things with them by just simply considering "oh this person looks at it differently blahblah".




> Lookey there, Ti is your second strongest function and Ni among your weakest in most theories.


Why are you pointing this out?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> I understand you may just like playing around with theories, that's okay too but please understand that some people try to actually use socionics as it's being advertised with the promise of practical application.


Theories don't promise or advertise anything in practice, only in words. This is the biggest false assumption about socionics. That isn't "playing around" with theory, that's using and applying it in a conscious way. I'll grant you, that some of the intertype relationships are very poorly verbalized, and if taken literally, can be way off. Someone needs to do something about that before everyone is thrown off. 

Much of what's going on in socionics (half of the functions) is actually not conscious, so taking the situation at face value can entirely miss a number of very important complexities. I guess I wasn't very "nice" in saying it, but I care enough about people studying the theory to urge them from writing it off (I know you didn't entirely do that) just because they don't see things in ways that are "obvious" to them on the surface. There's much more going on than that. 



> one of it has been examined in a proper empirical way to check for actual existence of correlations and for prediction strengths, as far as I know.


As I understand it, socionics is in fact based on a number of empirical studies done in Russia, by Augusta, Gulenko, and Filatova. I'm not sure if they're available in English - it would be nice to have them here, I'll let you know if I can find them somehow. 



> Why are you pointing this out?


Because your Ti is stronger than your Ni, so it's obvious that you'd prefer a Ti approach to the theory. My Ni is stronger than my Ti, and I prefer an Ni approach to the theory. I was just pointing out that everyone's take is based, ironically, on their own function preferences. In that sense, it was sort of pointless of me/anyone to try and assert my own way of using socionics, but I guess we've at least established a few contrasting ways for everyone else to see


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Theories don't promise or advertise anything in practice, only in words. This is the biggest false assumption about socionics. That isn't "playing around" with theory, that's using and applying it in a conscious way. I'll grant you, that some of the intertype relationships are very poorly verbalized, and if taken literally, can be way off. Someone needs to do something about that before everyone is thrown off.


My wording was no good then, I obviously meant people advertising socionics in this way.

I don't think it's purely an issue with verbalization.




> Much of what's going on in socionics (half of the functions) is actually not conscious, so taking the situation at face value can entirely miss a number of very important complexities. I guess I wasn't very "nice" in saying it, but I care enough about people studying the theory to urge them from writing it off (I know you didn't entirely do that) just because they don't see things in ways that are "obvious" to them on the surface. There's much more going on than that.


Hey, do you know of any socionics source that defines "conscious" in a way relevant to the socionics theory? I've never found any.

Btw I didn't notice your not being "nice", no worries.




> As I understand it, socionics is in fact based on a number of empirical studies done in Russia, by Augusta, Gulenko, and Filatova. I'm not sure if they're available in English - it would be nice to have them here, I'll let you know if I can find them somehow.


Wikipedia says this hasn't been done and I never found anything about it either.

But perhaps we mean something different by "empirical studies". Did they establish a standard for typing people that was used in the same way by every and each typer and then measure how often the theory's predictions about interactions worked? Did they publish these numbers?




> Because your Ti is stronger than your Ni, so it's obvious that you'd prefer a Ti approach to the theory. My Ni is stronger than my Ti, and I prefer an Ni approach to the theory. I was just pointing out that everyone's take is based, ironically, on their own function preferences. In that sense, it was sort of pointless of me/anyone to try and assert my own way of using socionics, but I guess we've at least established a few contrasting ways for everyone else to see


My initial approach was more Ni so this is not a great example of showing how socionics works so great.


----------



## 11thNight (Sep 2, 2012)

I think it would be a good idea for you to check out mbti and see what seems most logical to you.

I started out with socionics because that is what I was introduced to, but later converted to myers briggs. I tested as infj in socionics, which would supposedly make me an infp in myers briggs. However, as I was exploring my type I found I related more the mbti description of infj.

Funfact: most socionics and mbti tests don't test you on your functions, such as Se or Si, Ne or Ni. They test you on whether you're an introvert/extrovert, sensor/intuitive dominate, or judger/perceiver. In other words, your type probably isn't different from socionics to mbti in a way. I would suggest looking at the functions socionics/mbti supposedly says your letter type has.

For instance, I believe I use Ni, Fe, Ti, Se and not Fi, Ne, Te, Si, and I am most definitely an introvert and a judger, thus mbti seems more accurate to me.

Once again I would encourage you to look for evidence to evaluate socionics' type relations theory. Personally, I didn't see a correlation between what socionics said and the type of people I enjoyed hanging around with and how we related to each other. That said, I think some types tend to get along better than others, but these are just generalities and I believe this varies from person to person.

From what I can tell, socionics uses theories to decide what types, by its logic, _should _get along. However, there doesn't seem to be much real world evidence to back this up. My advice: check out polls and threads. What types do certain types tend to say they are attracted to? From doing this myself, the Keirsey theory seems to correlate more with attraction in the real world than socionics' duel type theory.

Now on to V.I. Do certain types have a general look? My guess would actually be yes. Check out type picture threads. Do you notice an overall look to certain types? I think I have, and I think I fit the general look of infjs myself. However, I'm not sure if this general look matches up with socionics v.i. descriptions. And I would like to add what I've noticed are _vague_ generalities that do not apply to every individual.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

11thNight said:


> Now on to V.I. Do certain types have a general look? My guess would actually be yes. Check out type picture threads. Do you notice an overall look to certain types? I think I have, and I think I fit the general look of infjs myself. However, I'm not sure if this general look matches up with socionics v.i. descriptions. And I would like to add what I've noticed are _vague_ generalities that do not apply to every individual.


Facts: I put up a few pics of myself and a descriptions of myself as well on a socionics forum and asked people to type me, I got more variation in the VI guesses than in the guesses based on my texts (descriptions, writing style, interaction with the people on the forum etc). 

Conclusion: VI is more unreliable than good old and yes unreliable way of typing.


----------



## 11thNight (Sep 2, 2012)

11thNight said:


> I'm not sure if this general look matches up with socionics v.i. descriptions. And I would like to add what I've noticed are _vague_ generalities that do not apply to every individual.


I do think overall there might be some similarities in the appearances of types. If you looked at a hundred pictures of people of the same type you might notice a few trends. However, if you just looked at one person, I'm not sure you'd be able to type them by the way they look. Personally, I don't ever try to type people by the way they look. I think the best way is to get to know someone and observe how they act and what they value. And if you have a thorough understanding of socionics or mbti, I think observation may actually be a better way to type someone than a self-assessing test.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

MBTI never claimed to use Dr. Jung’s work verbatim, nor did Socionics. Neither system ever based the original theories on function-attitude usage. In fact MBTI created what purposely created the dichotomous four-letter codes to maintain a simplification of personality type. It was never either systems intent to create the existing confusion which Dr. Jung himself envisioned would eventually occur with his theory (hence the reason he never attempted to describe his types beyond the dominant function-attitude). What is remarkable and continues to be overlooked is that when Socionics came on the scene in the 1970’s it also discouraged the use of function-attitudes as well. Both systems have more in common with one another than either has with Carl Jung’s Psychological Type theory. 

Here is the only noted difference between MBTI and Socionics as they were both originally intended to be used as tools. MBTI focuses on forced choice-dichotomies (ENFP) and secondly on functions only (N-F-T-S). Anyone that can argue that the MBTI theory has ever focused on function-attitude usage beyond the dominant for the types that share the function-attitude is reading hybrid work that was only introduced in the past 10-20 years (ala Lenore Thomson, Otto Kroger and the Tigers). Contrary to whatever anyone would like to claim, Socionics was not created as a personality system until the 1970s. Socionics originally adopted Myers’ four-letter dichotomous codes as most did, including Keirsey, because it was simple. Where Socionics and MBTI always differed is that the theory of MBTI has a focus on the extraverted function (whether it is dominant or not) hence the capitalized J/P, and Socionics focuses on the dominant function (whether it was introverted or not), hence the small j/p. 

Anything beyond the MBTI system which can be read *here*, is merely someone’s interpretation and expansion into a hybrid system, not actual MBTI. The same goes for Socionics that can be read *here*. In conclusion, both systems attempt to measure the un-measurable by focusing on predictive behavior. People using the term JCF have created a new hybrid by attempting to use Dr. Jung’s terminology while adhering to Myers’ theory.


----------

