# MBTI vs Socionics



## aestrivex

Functianalyst said:


> Keywords, subjective interpretation. Not stupid, just not willing to buy into one of the crackpots you so eloquently disdain. It's the kettle calling the pot black. And this is the reason that Socionics is laughed at for legitimacy. You people can't agree on basic principles.


as though MBTI theorists can... what is your point? there are certainly philosophically interesting points to be made about the ineffectiveness of using a language, even a principally "better" language if it is less easily interpretable by other people -- but you have not come close to making those points. instead, you remain stuck in your mental set of assuming that every language is principally the same and that everyone will and does interpret this language in the same way.



> Is that another way of conceding that Socionics is the third child in a relationship of Jung, MBTI then Socionics? I am being generous because I can put Berens, Keirsey and Kroeger before Socioncs placing it in 6th for legitimacy. The point is you can't show where Socionics is anything but a spin-off since that is what it is. But as for your intent, remember you struck first and could have avoided my response like the plague.


what does being the third child mean? or the sixth child? i have no idea what point you're trying to make. is it about the external usefulness or applicability of socionics, as you seem to be implying with the idea that "socionics is bunk" more or less -- or about the relationship (i.e. difference) between socionics and jungian typology? the latter is a perfectly reasonable point, the former is one i disagree with wholly.


----------



## aestrivex

bobdaduck said:


> Okay, seriously @_aestrivex_ . You're not helping anyone. I didn't see a single counter argument on your part. What I saw, and what anyone else who reads this thread sees, is you calling Functianalyst an imbecile in 20 different ways, try to explain your thinking without giving any conclusion, and use needlessly big words to make yourself sound smart. Please provide all of us pathetically ignorant onlookers with a bulleted list of whatever point you're trying to make. Honestly I can't even tell anymore.


i am sorely tempted to decline, but i will provide a short bulleted list in compliance with your unreasonably volitional request for information



Se in socionics is described differently from Se in MBTI in many ways -- Se in socionics is classically related to volition and in my interpretation to external demands, whereas in MBTI it is most commonly related to immediate perceptions of sensory stimuli
Si in socionics is described differently from Si in MBTI in every way -- Si in socionics is classically related to comfort and internal sensory/kinesthetic experience and in my interpretation, internal demands, whereas in MBTI it is related to a slew of other things like memory and experience
Te in socionics is described differently from Te in MBTI in many ways -- Te in socionics is classically related to the accuracy and acquisition of factual information, whereas in MBTI it is related to a singular and narrowly-focused objective orientation towards information (this is a subtle distinction)
other IM elements in socionics have subtle differences from their jungian cognitive function counterparts that i outline in more depth in the link i provided to my wiki article
socionics IM elements as they are described are mediated by quadra values or combined influences of multiple functions on the expression of informational filters
IM elements in socionics are classically described with the dichotomies of static/dynamic, internal/external, and bodies/fields, a classification which I personally find to be of little use


----------



## Functianalyst

aestrivex said:


> as though MBTI theorists can... what is your point? there are certainly philosophically interesting points to be made about the ineffectiveness of using a language, even a principally "better" language if it is less easily interpretable by other people -- but you have not come close to making those points. instead, you remain stuck in your mental set of assuming that every language is principally the same and that everyone will and does interpret this language in the same way.


Okay I have grown weary of this. Look you little amoeba, you know that you can’t make a viable argument to support claims of Socionics, because none exist. So instead of attempting to attack my character will not win you any brownie points since I still have no recollection of speaking to you in the past. That should tell you that any discussions with you were uneventful. Socionics and MBTI are no different, in that they both subscribe to Jung’s work using the cognitive functions. Plain and SIMPLE!!


aestrivex said:


> what does being the third child mean? or the sixth child? i have no idea what point you're trying to make. is it about the external usefulness or applicability of socionics, as you seem to be implying with the idea that "socionics is bunk" more or less -- or about the relationship (i.e. difference) between socionics and jungian typology? the latter is a perfectly reasonable point, the former is one i disagree with wholly.


The point is that Socionics was not developed until a century after Jung’s work and decades after MBTI. As for Berens work, it’s legitimate due to the work put into it by Berens and Nardi. Keirsey, well Berens was his prize pupil. Kroeger is laughable. That leaves Socionics being behind the most laughable system that I have read. Not because the system does not have some legitimate points, it’s because people like you who are clueless to type, attempting to legitimize Socionics with your impotent arguments. Come with some ammunition, not with your hands full of ----.


----------



## cyamitide

Functianalyst said:


> And this is where the problem lies. Some Socionics enthusiasts are so adamant to argue a difference between MBTI and Socionics that they are willing to even admit they disagree with Socionics. But to your point in the previous post. We are well aware of the symbols and that the symbols still represent Jung's cognitive functions.
> 
> Arguing a point because you have a disdain for me personally does not mean you're right. You still have yet to indicate that Socionics is different since it also is based on the principles of Jung.


I've studied socionics and MBTI for several years and I agree with you that they are the same system. Some people though aren't able to see through the detail into the core of the subject matter and insist that they are different. (aestrivex afaik is autistic so he is not very conscious of social cues, hence his strong language)

You should read Kepinkis's stuff though, can find it here: 11954834-Andrej-Kapusta-Life-circle-time-and-the-self-in-Antoni-Kpiskis-conception-of-information-metabolism.pdf




Functianalyst said:


> ...That leaves Socionics being behind the most laughable system that I have read. Not because the system does not have some legitimate points, it’s because people like you who are clueless to type, attempting to legitimize Socionics with your impotent arguments. Come with some ammunition, not with your hands full of ----.


Not so. I've found that Socionics in many ways goes beyond MBTI. For example it explains how groupings of functions affect people's cognitive styles, life attitudes and behavior. With MBTI you're stuck simplistically correlating cognitive functions with their outward manifestations one-to-one. There are many other interesting things that socionics has going for it, such as quadra progression for example that attempts to explain progress in society and political upheavals. You can't get this in depth with MBTI.


----------



## Functianalyst

cyamitide said:


> I've studied socionics and MBTI for several years and I agree with you that they are the same system. Some people though aren't able to see through the detail into the core of the subject matter and insist that they are different. (aestrivex afaik is autistic so he is not very conscious of social cues, hence his strong language)
> 
> You should read Kepinkis's stuff though, can find it here: 11954834-Andrej-Kapusta-Life-circle-time-and-the-self-in-Antoni-Kpiskis-conception-of-information-metabolism.pdf[/quotes]Thanks for the referral but I was warned the url may be harmful. I may look at it anyhow.
> 
> 
> cyamitide said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. I've found that Socionics in many ways goes beyond MBTI. For example it explains how groupings of functions affect people's cognitive styles, life attitudes and behavior. With MBTI you're stuck simplistically correlating cognitive functions one-to-one. There are many other interesting things that socionics has going for it, such as quadra progression for example, that attempt to explain progress in society and political upheavals. You can't get this in depth with MBTI.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no dog in this fight since I believe that Socionics is correct in their dichotomy display. I am first and foremost a judging type, ergo I am ISTj instead of ISTP. As for correlating types into groups, that is why we have temperament. Thanks again, but I was in the process of editing my last post since blasting anyone with similar arguments will only result in others coming later.
Click to expand...


----------

