# Best Typology Theory



## inverity (Feb 16, 2016)

The Big Five is accurate, but the MBTI is much more interesting to me. Socionics seems too complex, and Enneagram is also complicated. I have no clue what a tritype is.


----------



## Aurus (Jan 8, 2016)

inverity said:


> The Big Five is accurate, but the MBTI is much more interesting to me. Socionics seems too complex, and Enneagram is also complicated. I have no clue what a tritype is.


Well, i had some problemas with Big Five... But none of the less, i think that MBTI is the most interesting because it is more fun. Socionics can get really tricky. Socionics is basically how you use/process information socially and individually. And about The tritype... I understood it, but o didn't get why it existed in the first place.


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

I accidentally voted Socionics...my favorite flavor of typology is Beebe's 8 Function Model. 

Socionics seems like it is the most Jungian of these three and like it has the most depth to it, but it is pretty complex. The MBTI is fun, but it feels like an oversimplification. I think that is why there are a lot of people that have problems finding their type. Unlike Socionics there seems to be no definite definition of the functions. As for the Enneagram it is something that I have never really gotten into. I'll to study it and then zone out and move on to something else. 

My biggest problem with Five Factor Model tests is Openness to Experience. It comes across more as elitism than openness.


----------



## NTlazerman (Nov 28, 2014)

*MBTI* - Lots of people mistyped, lots of confusion, lots of different versions and descriptions, lots of people who don't know a real lot, lots of debate, lots of misunderstandings, wars between dichotomies and functions, debate about origin, everything is a mess. Every basic element seems to be questioned by some large minority. I'm done.

*Enneagram *- Works, but I am not convinced about the whole gluttony thing, if you know what I mean... A good theory, but very difficult to really understand. I say not a whole lot wrong here, but not my thing, at least at the moment.

*Socionics* - Finally something that is not vague. Had to jump to socionics because it's more concrete and much more well-defined than MBTI. The issue that many people have with socionics is that they judge it before understanding how it actually works. The facial recognition thing for example, is not too bad at all; you just have to understand that it is all about expressions and stuff like that rather than physical features. And a type WILL make complete sense to you after you find your own (correct) type. It is actually not so complicated at all. And it discusses intertype relations - something where MBTI fails miserably. Socionics is the future of typology.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

NTlazerman said:


> *MBTI* - Lots of people mistyped, lots of confusion, lots of different versions and descriptions, lots of people who don't know a real lot, lots of debate, lots of misunderstandings, wars between dichotomies and functions, debate about origin, everything is a mess. Every basic element seems to be questioned by some large minority. I'm done.
> 
> *Enneagram *- Works, but I am not convinced about the whole gluttony thing, if you know what I mean... A good theory, but very difficult to really understand. I say not a whole lot wrong here, but not my thing, at least at the moment.
> 
> *Socionics* - Finally something that is not vague. Had to jump to socionics because it's more concrete and much more well-defined than MBTI. The issue that many people have with socionics is that they judge it before understanding how it actually works. The facial recognition thing for example, is not too bad at all; you just have to understand that it is all about expressions and stuff like that rather than physical features. And a type WILL make complete sense to you after you find your own (correct) type. It is actually not so complicated at all. And it discusses intertype relations - something where MBTI fails miserably. Socionics is the future of typology.


The future of typology is a slow and agonizing death. Plus business applications like MBTI.

Don't forget that most of the academia has given up on this.

...what? Whoever said that the reality had to be nice?


----------



## Aurus (Jan 8, 2016)

Ixim said:


> *The future of typology is a slow and agonizing death*. Plus business applications like MBTI.
> 
> Don't forget that most of the academia has given up on this.
> 
> ...what? Whoever said that the reality had to be nice?


Lol, it might be. But personality tests have been around for a long time because it's fun and sometimes it can actually be useful. But yes, MBTI maybe die. Socionics and Enneagram as well, but typology per se... Maybe not.



NTlazerman said:


> *MBTI* - Lots of people mistyped, lots of confusion, lots of different versions and descriptions, lots of people who don't know a real lot, lots of debate, lots of misunderstandings, wars between dichotomies and functions, debate about origin, everything is a mess. Every basic element seems to be questioned by some large minority. I'm done.
> 
> *Enneagram *- Works, but I am not convinced about the whole gluttony thing, if you know what I mean... A good theory, but very difficult to really understand. I say not a whole lot wrong here, but not my thing, at least at the moment.
> 
> *Socionics* - Finally something that is not vague. Had to jump to socionics because it's more concrete and much more well-defined than MBTI. The issue that many people have with socionics is that they judge it before understanding how it actually works. The facial recognition thing for example, is not too bad at all; you just have to understand that it is all about expressions and stuff like that rather than physical features. And a type WILL make complete sense to you after you find your own (correct) type. It is actually not so complicated at all. And it discusses intertype relations - something where MBTI fails miserably. Socionics is the future of typology.


True. However, the MBTI can be useful as an assessment. It was accurate to me. It's kinda clear to everyone that i am NT. But my nature is obvious NF. Everyone close to me would say i am NF, and everyone that vaguely knows me would say i am NT or SF (as contradictory as it seems). But if most people had knowledge of MBTI (including a few that are close to me) would type me ENTP. Which, not surprisingly, is my Socionics type (ILE). Enneagram is kinda neutral to me. It can be good, but there are a lot of unnecessary stuff that people made up in the attempt to make it a perfect system. IE: Tritype. 



Coconut Meat said:


> I accidentally voted Socionics...my favorite flavor of typology is Beebe's 8 Function Model.
> 
> Socionics seems like it is the most Jungian of these three and like it has the most depth to it, but it is pretty complex. The MBTI is fun, but it feels like an oversimplification. I think that is why there are a lot of people that have problems finding their type. Unlike Socionics there seems to be no definite definition of the functions. As for the Enneagram it is something that I have never really gotten into. I'll to study it and then zone out and move on to something else.
> 
> My biggest problem with Five Factor Model tests is Openness to Experience. It comes across more as elitism than openness.


My biggest problem with Big Five is that this model is completely forgettable, in my honest opinion xD But in the rest i completely agree with you. Socionics isn't vague at all and it is clear in it's proposal, which is the Information Metabolism theory + Model A. MBTI is vaguely accurate in my opinion, but it is pretty shallow and it stereotypes a lot. "As an INFJ, your main life goal is to help people and be charitable". Okay, this is definitely a goal to me, but it isn't really major. My goal is to make a a good mark in the world through art and cinema, *therefore* making it a better place. A lot of type descriptions forget about the cognitive functions and makes it a buzzfeed quiz description. Read 16personalities.com description of my type,. It seems that every INFJ is either Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King, and neither of them were INFJ's.


----------

