# Socionics is the stupidiest thing I've ever seen



## j3321

"1. rules for positioning the 8 different information elements in a framework of as many different slots (called functions) to create 16 distinct type formulas
2. general characteristics of each function that apply to the information element in that position regardless of type"


Sounds like how any personality theory based on cognitive processes works...


----------



## j3321

"By combining the characteristics of an element with those of one of the eight positions of Model A, we can generalize traits and attitudes shared by the two socionic types with the element in that position."


This is all good and gravy but it's nothing new. It's interesting. Glad they put thought into it. But this is not new.


----------



## Kamajama

what is really cool are the intertype relations and the quadras which are formed by your valued functions. it's like one happy family.


----------



## j3321

"ILIs often betray a harsh, critical perspective on viewpoints and ideas that they find particularly stupid or insensible. "


Haha sounds like me. Got that right.


----------



## Kamajama

You are a definite ILI man, no doubt of that. You're lucky we are super-ego relations. I happen to be a SEI(ISFp) in socionics, so we will be fighting in this thread for a while.


----------



## j3321

I really like the info I think the physical descriptions are unbelievable stupid and I don't think that there is anything profoundly "new" about it as they claim. It's just taking Jung's theory and running with it. That's not bad but it's not novel. It's what all other personality theories do.


----------



## Kamajama

What is truly novel is the theory as a whole, its ability to predict the course of relationships between types rather than just focusing on cool type profiles.


----------



## j3321

I wouldn't say that was novel though I would say it was an extension of an already established theory. They are not working out of a new framework like they suggest. There's nothing fundamentally new, though they certainly have build on the foundations laid by Jung. The website is disingenuous. It doesn't deserve it's own name. And whoever decided certain personalities physically look certain ways needs to be shot.

Other than that it's good stuff. I'll keep reading.


----------



## Kamajama

If you will read on over the next couple days, you will see that socionics is a well-established theory, just as established as MBTI, although leagues less popular. Trust me on this. And I still support VI to the extent I have said.

Gonna sleep now. If you want to lurk on our socionics forum, it is the16types.info Socionics Forums - A forum about Socionics, read the posts and get an idea on how crazy we really are to believe this stuff. My name is Kamajama on there as well.


----------



## Vaka

j3321 said:


> "ILIs often betray a harsh, critical perspective on viewpoints and ideas that they find particularly stupid or insensible. "
> 
> 
> Haha sounds like me. Got that right.


I think ILI would be MBTI's INTJ.


----------



## Kamajama

Lara Croft said:


> I think ILI would be MBTI's INTJ.


The J/P switch is untrue. MBTI functions are not the same as Socionics functions although they are named the same, and I know a couple people who I gave the MBTI test and came out as INTP and have ended up being ILI in socionics.


----------



## j3321

I dunno I just clicked one that sounded like me.


----------



## j3321

Another reason I don't like Socionics is it's so hard to catch on to. A good theory can be reduced to very basic, simple terms. Socionics is awkward. I'm having to strain myself to follow the reasoning (or perhaps the article is just written poorly).


----------



## Kamajama

j3321 said:


> Another reason I don't like Socionics is it's so hard to catch on to. A good theory can be reduced to very basic, simple terms. Socionics is awkward. I'm having to strain myself to follow the reasoning (or perhaps the article is just written poorly).


Took me two months to learn socionics. I don't regret it. It has helped me in my life in more profound ways than MBTI did. It told me to not pursue a relationship with an ILI(INTp) girl. I ignored it and I got hurt very badly.


----------



## j3321

Relationships do not stand or fall on _any_ personality theory.


----------



## j3321

Although I dunno I would never get close to an INFJ again haah. Weird people.


----------



## OmarFW

every system has it's flaws. socionics succeeds in some areas, and fails in others. as does mbti and every other type assessment


----------



## j3321

Well if you put it like that we don't have to think about it anymore and everyone can be right! wooo!!!


----------



## OmarFW

j3321 said:


> Well if you put it like that we don't have to think about it anymore and everyone can be right! wooo!!!


when it comes to personality theories, you have to just use common sense to call somebody "wrong".

there are theories that almost nobody can refute like introversion and extraversion, but more precise theories are easily refuted.

half the reason places like this forum exist is to collaborate the opinions and theories of real people, not just professionals, and provide a place for us to reflect and get feedback and knowledge from different viewpoints and people so we can learn more about people who are different than ourselves.

after all, typology is a peoples science that is fueled by the population of the world, it mostly lacks authoritarian figures to tell people what is fact.

If you believe something to be true, then by all means it has just as much a chance of being true as the theories of everyone else here.


----------



## Kamajama

j3321 said:


> Relationships do not stand or fall on _any_ personality theory.


False. Socionics has the ability to predict the general trend of a relationship between two types.


----------



## The Great One

Kamajama said:


> What site? Link me.
> 
> 
> 
> haha, not bullshit. Facial expressions or lack thereof and general behavior are very telling in order to discover personality.


I'm talking about that. You are right, body language is a very good indicator of personality. However I'm talking about the descriptions for example that say that..

ENTP's have short slim body's. They have round faces....etc. 

To me you can't judge a person's personality based on facial and bodily features. I mean what if the ENTP gets plastic surgery or gets fat. Ya know? Shit happens.


----------



## j3321

I'd agree. I'm not saying MBTI can't improve or personality theory in general. It's just Socionics isn't it. :laughing:



Edit: I need to quote people instead of assuming my post will be right below theirs.


----------



## ENTrePenuer

The Great One said:


> I'm talking about that. You are right, body language is a very good indicator of personality. However I'm talking about the descriptions for example that say that..
> 
> ENTP's have short slim body's. They have round faces....etc.
> 
> To me you can't judge a person's personality based on facial and bodily features. I mean what if the ENTP gets plastic surgery or gets fat. Ya know? Shit happens.


... and what if they get hit by lightning.
Clearly the theory is flawed.


----------



## j3321

Socionics status: Demolished.


----------



## j3321

I met an ENTP in real life and thought of you. Hope that's not weird. I made sure to patronize him a little bit. Not sure he knew why I was doing that. But we know.


----------



## Kamajama

j3321 said:


> Socionics status: Demolished.


haha! This is quotable.


----------



## ENTrePenuer

j3321 said:


> Socionics status: Demolished.


yes, years of professional study demolished by a 14 year old in his mothers basement.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis

What we should do to socionics:


----------



## Kaj

Ignoring all of the facial features stuff about that webpage for a minute, there is still a whole load of interesting and elaborate aspects to the socionomics model of psychology. The inter-type relations theory for one thing is very fascintating. I haven't made up my mind about it, but I'd like to see a more thorough demolishing of the theory-- please?


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Sovietonics is Marxist bs of the worst kind. Yeah everyone has a place in society directly correlated to their personality type so they can work more efficiently for the glorious state


----------



## Biracial

j3321 said:


> "Visual identification
> 
> This method is based on the principle that people of the same Psychological Type have similar body structures, facial expressions, facial structures and eyes. Socionics experts use the visual method of personality identification as a main method (wherever possible) and all other methods for assistance. More on this method later.
> 
> Advantages of the method: instant identification; the quickest and most reliable of all known methods; no need for personal involvement; allows remote identification and identification by photographs;
> 
> Disadvantages of the method: practical application requires a great deal of experience and training; the identification process can be complicated by racial differences."
> 
> If you believe this: You are a moron. "The quickest and most reliable of all known methods"???? For God's sake.


I can completely understand why you find it offputting. Honestly, I'm glad that you do!


----------



## The Exception

j3321 said:


> I was bored so I decided to look into socionics to see what that system had to offer and man is it stupid. "The INTj typically has rounded shoulders." HAHAH! Am I wrong or is this astrology at it's worst?





j3321 said:


> "Most people do not understand INTjs and try to keep away from them."
> 
> 
> hahaha that is how the description ends. Seriously.


Those physical descriptions are grossly overgeneralized and come from ₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪ 

Wikisocion and socionics.us are better sources of socionics info. 

I don't totally discount visual identification as I do think that some types are more prone to certain facial expressions than others. However when you get into things like body type that's where I get extremely skeptical. 

I like socionics and I find it to be richer than MBTI in several ways. Socionics gets at the heart of *why* some relationships work better than others by explaining it in terms of functions and their placements. 

Socionics discusses in more detail the role that all 8 functions play compared to MBTI.


----------



## dude10000

Instead of attacking the nuts and bolts of socionics, which are indeed creaky, people are making a fuss about the physical patterns identified in type descriptions without asking if they are justified by experience. If a person has met hundreds of people of each type, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that certain physical patterns will stand out. Certainly, while I wouldn't use such characteristics as a basis to identify the type of others, that doesn't mean certain traits won't cluster around certain types. 

Here's an example. I recently finished a biography of A.J. Ayer, and pegged him as an ESTP. I went and found a video of him, which in large part resembles the socionics type description. Only so much of this can be attributed to confirmation bias.






"When standing in one place they tend to wriggle rhythmically as if they have a slight electric current running through them... Older ESTps often become puffy and swollen around the eyes. They also have a tendency to squint... ESTps rarely wear eye-catching clothes. When in conversation, ESTps always show self-restraint and tact. They generally interact in an open and friendly manner, always showing positive emotions. During interaction ESTps always try to show that they are paying full attention and that they understand their interlocutor very well." etc. etc.


----------



## scarygirl

Well, little details can say things about people and in fact it's very interesting, but I don't buy it as a theory. i think human range is wider than types, socionics, or these things. And still I feel there is some truth about all this.


----------



## agokcen

I'm not into Socionics simply because I don't like the functional orders it uses. I think MBTI/JCF is much more accurate. Ne-Ti-Se-Fi for an ENTP? Oy, definitely not.

The appearances thing doesn't help, either. Say what you will about it being unimportant in the grand scheme of the system, but that's almost all one can find about it on the internet, and there are next to no books on it here in the states.


----------



## absentminded

j3321 said:


> _If you can't get that right you can't get anything right._


Not true. Hitler transformed Germany into a fascist state nearly flawlessly, then proceeded to loose World War II due to his obsession with conquering Russia to obtain his _lebensraum_



j3321 said:


> Another reason I don't like Socionics is it's so hard to catch on to. A good theory can be reduced to very basic, simple terms. Socionics is awkward. I'm having to strain myself to follow the reasoning (or perhaps the article is just written poorly).


“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.” - Albert Einstein



Kamajama said:


> False. Socionics has the ability to predict the general trend of a relationship between two types.


True. Yet, as *j3321* said, the quality of a relationship is not decided by one's personality. As long as there is *SOME* common ground between two people and both parties will make an effort, a happy, fruitful relationship is possible between *ANYONE* regardless of how any theory chooses to group, classify, or name them. A relationship not working only indicates that one or both parties were unwilling to work hard enough to make it work. Personality is just another approach to trying make the first working lightbulb (metaphorically speaking). Now personality theory may indicate that certain types are less likely to try to make said relationship work, but that is a stereotype. All of social science consists of the study of stereotypes that work *MOST* of the time. Personality theory is no different.



Kamajama said:


> I think MBTI focuses too much on T/F, as if F types are unable to think and want to preserve the emotional dynamic at all times no matter what and T types are the ones who ride roughshod over everyone's emotions and are the classical "thinker". These stereotypes only have limited basis in reality.


No one who really knows what they're talking about would say that. In MBTI, T/F are the judging functions. They are both used to come to a conclusion and both are logical in their own way. MBTI does not say that feelers can't be logical or that thinkers can't be emotional. What MBTI does say is that feelers tend to be less logical than thinkers (and potentially prefer it that way), where thinkers prefer to be less emotional than feelers (and I for one prefer it that way). Again, it's a stereotype. It works much of the time, but not all of the time.



ENTrePenuer said:


> yes, years of professional study demolished by a 14 year old in his mothers basement.


Wasn't Newtonian physics "demolished" by a failed physicist working in a Swiss patent office?



Diphenhydramine said:


> Sovietonics is Marxist bs of the worst kind. Yeah everyone has a place in society directly correlated to their personality type so they can work more efficiently for the glorious state


What???? Quite a non sequitur you've got there. How does a theory oriented towards understanding the way people think have anything to do with how it is used? The dystopian actions you describe would work just as well with MBTI. Do you say that because the creator is Russian/Eastern European? Or because you disagree? (I propose an amendment to Godwin's Law: the probability of someone referring to Hitler, Stalin, other dictators/genocide perpetrators, authoritarian political regimes/philosophies, etc. approaches one as the length of the conversation approaches infinity.)



Kaj said:


> I haven't made up my mind about it, but I'd like to see a more thorough demolishing of the theory-- please?


How's that? :wink:



...And to answer your question, no I don't particularly like socionics. I've looked into it and it seems...contrived. MBTI is simpler and much more elegant.


----------



## T_Diddy

I kept seeing things on this forum about socionics so I did some research; went in with a positive and open mind set.

Gotta say I think it's trying too hard and has failed on a lot of points. Maybe with more work and refinement it could be okay but for now I'm staying away from it.


----------



## Ostentatious

Well, I haven't read all the posts so I don't know if anyone has posted something like this but...
Rounded shoulders doesn't just refer the shape of the shoulders, as you seem to be thinking.
It can be caused by sitting for excessive amounts of time. Most people don't sit with proper posture, they tend to lean in a bit with their arms forward when working at a computer/writing/whatever. It does seem that INTJs spend more time at computers than some others types.
Chest tightness (which can be caused depression, anxiety, and the like) will also pull the shoulders forward. I haven't seen any statistics on anything like this, but I, an INTJ, deal with both of these things.
Yes, I have rounded shoulders.


----------



## bogdan

Maybe socionics was made by a very intuitive S type ). Yet, I agree with Ostentatious you can find arguments in everything even in zodiac. I think the advantage of socionics is it's different language from the MBTI, I think that there are many people who will see MBTI as being very sophisticated and hard to understand, and will like the simple (almost sensing) socionics approach to personality types. MTBT is more about the subconscious whilst socionics is about physical actions. That's why most of the NT types will be prone to "demolish" the socionics theories (which is for the dominant S type), or the Zodiac system (which is for the dominant NF type).


----------



## SubterraneanHomesickAlien

bogdan said:


> Yet, I agree with Ostentatious you can find arguments in everything even in zodiac.


No, you can't. Any similarities with Zodiac types are pure coincidence, as are similarities with the physical descriptions offered by Socionics. While parts of Socionics may indeed be accurate, having something that is basically astrology on their main page severely reduces their credibility.


----------



## bogdan

SubterraneanHomesickAlien said:


> No, you can't. Any similarities with Zodiac types are pure coincidence, as are similarities with the physical descriptions offered by Socionics. While parts of Socionics may indeed be accurate, having something that is basically astrology on their main page severely reduces their credibility.


Well. I really meant the people for whom the Zodiac was created, is more for the superstitious SF and NF types. For me Zodiac doesn't have any logic only lucky coincidence.


----------



## Apollo Celestio

I don't have enough data to pass judgment.. if it passes, it will be integrated, if not it will be discarded. I'd like actual helpful information for accepting discarding it from now on.


----------



## Monoquel

Socionics is confusing. I prefer MBTI as it is less flawed. That's why it's more popular because you can read into it with much more ease. You can also see relationships with the same clarity (It's easy for me) When I read the description of INFp, I was pretty ticked when I saw "the romantic". I'm not very romantic AT ALL, same goes with plenty other infp's i know. When I see anything related to socionics, such a tables or graphs it looks like just a bunch of letters. I didn't know it had any depth to it. No offense but I priginally thought it was a tacky knock of of MBTI. If it really is that facilitating, what does it have to make it so?


----------



## Promethea

Not all socionics theory includes V.I, and many socionists ignore V.I.

Perhaps you should bother to understand the model, before you judge it based on something that probably the majority of serious socionists don't even use.


----------



## Pete The Lich

Slkmcphee said:


> I think socionics does focus too much on the physical/appearances. For *ENTJ it says that we have no fashion sense and might wear clashing clothing as an experimen*t, or something along those lines.


WWHHHHAATTT?!

The ENTJs ive met have all worn suits or skirts
basically a level 1 CEO


----------



## Promethea

Monoquel said:


> Socionics is confusing. I prefer MBTI as it is less flawed. That's why it's more popular because you can read into it with much more ease. You can also see relationships with the same clarity (It's easy for me) When I read the description of INFp, I was pretty ticked when I saw "the romantic". I'm not very romantic AT ALL, same goes with plenty other infp's i know. When I see anything related to socionics, such a tables or graphs it looks like just a bunch of letters. I didn't know it had any depth to it. No offense but I priginally thought it was a tacky knock of of MBTI. If it really is that facilitating, what does it have to make it so?


Oh tell me how mbti is "less flawed." I'm all ears.


----------



## Autumn Raven

"During conversation INFps have a tendency to maintain eye contact and to touch their interlocutors hand."
I most certainly do _not._


----------



## Promethea

And for everyone judging socionics from what they see on ₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪ -- thats your first mistake. This website is notoriously full of shit. Its not real socionics. Good socionics literature is hard to come by, as most of it is only in russian.

Its not "an mbti knockoff" either. That is completely absurd. It was developed completely independently of mbti and the only thing they have in common is a basis in jungian theory.


----------



## Monoquel

Promethea said:


> And for everyone judging socionics from what they see on ₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪ -- thats your first mistake. This website is notoriously full of shit. Its not real socionics. Good socionics literature is hard to come by, as most of it is only in russian.
> 
> Its not "an mbti knockoff" either. That is completely absurd. It was developed completely independently of mbti and the only thing they have in common is a basis in jungian theory.


Well in that case I apologize. Since your defending this so unflinchingly, there must be some good in socionics. Obviously most of us are confused by that website and our impression of it is crap. I'd like to hear something enlightening about it then. What does it do to surpass MBTI/ (note: disregard my past post. I really have no idea what the hell socionics does. c


----------



## Promethea

Monoquel said:


> Well in that case I apologize. Since your defending this so unflinchingly, there must be some good in socionics. Obviously most of us are confused by that website and our impression of it is crap. I'd like to hear something enlightening about it then. What does it do to surpass MBTI/ (note: disregard my past post. I really have no idea what the hell socionics does. c


Socionics made sense of functions for me. I studied mbti functions trying to make sense of them and reconcile the fact that in mbti, the functions I identified with the most were an impossible combination. I didn't just give it all a casual glance, but determined that for certain, my functions were so. The functions in socionics are different from the ones in mbti for the most part, and only a few are similar. When I looked into what my set of functions could be in socionics, suddenly I could find a set that made sense. Te is not nearly the same thing in socionics as it is in mbti, and in socionics Te makes perfect sense for me. Ni is vaguely similar -- and that is another function I identified strongly with cross-system. Fi is different, but I identify with Fi in both. Se was different as well, and in mbti I would have never identified with it -- yet in socionics it made sense. Now, I put those in no particular order that could disclose what I think my socionics type is.. but it narrows it down to four -- all within the gamma quadra. 

Another thing that I think adds to the richness of the system are the ways the types are grouped into quadras. Those with similar functions, but grouped in a different order will most certainly have similarities. This is something overlooked in mbti. Mbti tries to predict relationships on shadow theories which make zero sense because those only share some of the functions, and mostly share opposites in just letters indicating extroversion introversion/ sensing intuiting / and so on -- which ends up meaning nothing about how those types may get along. 

mbti is also heavy on stereotypes. Many people who begin to look into socionics find that their type is much different than they thought, after they shed notions of "well I don't cry a lot, so I must be 'a t'" and so on..

In socionics you also use all of the functions to an extent -- or rather, you have access to them in some way. In mbti you are only limited to 4 and theres a vague and nonsensical idea that has yet to be explained to me in any meaningful way, of how those functions "can do" what "the others can do." Like that means anything.

Anyway, the functions make sense and the groupings of types make sense a lot better in my opinion.


----------



## Sybok

this is the most funny of today ;D
thank you!!!;D


> Their faces convey the feeling that their soul is suffering even when it is not.


----------



## Monoquel

Promethea said:


> Socionics made sense of functions for me. I studied mbti functions trying to make sense of them and reconcile the fact that in mbti, the functions I identified with the most were an impossible combination. I didn't just give it all a casual glance, but determined that for certain, my functions were so. The functions in socionics are different from the ones in mbti for the most part, and only a few are similar. When I looked into what my set of functions could be in socionics, suddenly I could find a set that made sense. Te is not nearly the same thing in socionics as it is in mbti, and in socionics Te makes perfect sense for me. Ni is vaguely similar -- and that is another function I identified strongly with cross-system. Fi is different, but I identify with Fi in both. Se was different as well, and in mbti I would have never identified with it -- yet in socionics it made sense. Now, I put those in no particular order that could disclose what I think my socionics type is.. but it narrows it down to four -- all within the gamma quadra.
> 
> Another thing that I think adds to the richness of the system are the ways the types are grouped into quadras. Those with similar functions, but grouped in a different order will most certainly have similarities. This is something overlooked in mbti. Mbti tries to predict relationships on shadow theories which make zero sense because those only share some of the functions, and mostly share opposites in just letters indicating extroversion introversion/ sensing intuiting / and so on -- which ends up meaning nothing about how those types may get along.
> 
> mbti is also heavy on stereotypes. Many people who begin to look into socionics find that their type is much different than they thought, after they shed notions of "well I don't cry a lot, so I must be 'a t'" and so on..
> 
> In socionics you also use all of the functions to an extent -- or rather, you have access to them in some way. In mbti you are only limited to 4 and theres a vague and nonsensical idea that has yet to be explained to me in any meaningful way, of how those functions "can do" what "the others can do." Like that means anything.
> 
> Anyway, the functions make sense and the groupings of types make sense a lot better in my opinion.


Well by the way you've explained it, socionics is probably best for more accuracy. You're also correct about stereotypes and shadow theories. MBTI leaves you in the dark, and you are left to make false assumptions based on prejudged opinions. This was most bothersome for me. But I'm still not fully convinced, since you are just one person giving me a potential opnion, and I have yet to hear opinions of others, to which i can judge it as a fact or a biased point of view. Though I'll have to take your word for it. 

I never had this problem with MBTI. Maybe It is because I've always avoided stereotypes and concluded that all types can range in personality due to certain plights we will all be effected by. MBTI lets people make their own conclusion on the types because it is so vague, am I right? Is socionics similar in this aspect (letting people jump to conclusions) or is it Definite Facts?


----------



## TheBoss

Promethea said:


> Socionics made sense of functions for me. I studied mbti functions trying to make sense of them and reconcile the fact that *in mbti, the functions I identified with the most were an impossible combination.* I didn't just give it all a casual glance, but determined that for certain, my functions were so. The functions in socionics are different from the ones in mbti for the most part, and only a few are similar. When I looked into what my set of functions could be in socionics, suddenly I could find a set that made sense.
> 
> (and etc)


Ditto. Well put.


----------



## Promethea

Monoquel said:


> Well by the way you've explained it, socionics is probably best for more accuracy. You're also correct about stereotypes and shadow theories. MBTI leaves you in the dark, and you are left to make false assumptions based on prejudged opinions. This was most bothersome for me. But I'm still not fully convinced, since you are just one person giving me a potential opnion, and I have yet to hear opinions of others, to which i can judge it as a fact or a biased point of view. Though I'll have to take your word for it.
> 
> I never had this problem with MBTI. Maybe It is because I've always avoided stereotypes and concluded that all types can range in personality due to certain plights we will all be effected by. MBTI lets people make their own conclusion on the types because it is so vague, am I right? Is socionics similar in this aspect (letting people jump to conclusions) or is it Definite Facts?


mbti is still useful, as a dichotomy. you can make claims about a person's surfacey characteristics with mbti just fine. it operates mostly on stereotypes because the system doesn't go much deeper with its flawed descriptions of functions. if you compare/contrast mbti/socionics, you will see beams of light shone on different parts, in the dark; i believe the ones socionics sheds a light on are more relevant. 

i am an intp for all practical purposes in mbti. what does that mean? i am an introverted person who will chase different thoughts without a lot of inhibition in the practice of doing so, and i will let this lead me away from focus on mundane duties..

but what am i, actually. my primary cognitive lense in socionics is either Fi or Ni. i am working out the last little bit of this, but its narrowed down to those. when i extrovert myself, i am Te. when i simply exist, i am Se. all of these things are misunderstood in mbti and require more examples in order to even explain what the hazy definitions mean. 

its theorized and not ignorantly, that in socionics i am an ISFj (Fi Se). i am either that, or an INTp (Ni Te) -- those are not very different in many ways; and the most easily confused types in socionics. what i am certain of is that the functions have absolutely nailed me, and they aren't just dichotomies or stereotypes. theres a whole quadra within these that i identify with.


----------



## Monoquel

Promethea said:


> mbti is still useful, as a dichotomy. you can make claims about a person's surfacey characteristics with mbti just fine. it operates mostly on stereotypes because the system doesn't go much deeper with its flawed descriptions of functions. if you compare/contrast mbti/socionics, you will see beams of light shone on different parts, in the dark; i believe the ones socionics sheds a light on are more relevant.
> 
> i am an intp for all practical purposes in mbti. what does that mean? i am an introverted person who will chase different thoughts without a lot of inhibition in the practice of doing so, and i will let this lead me away from focus on mundane duties..
> 
> but what am i, actually. my primary cognitive lense in socionics is either Fi or Ni. i am working out the last little bit of this, but its narrowed down to those. when i extrovert myself, i am Te. when i simply exist, i am Se. all of these things are misunderstood in mbti and require more examples in order to even explain what the hazy definitions mean.
> 
> its theorized and not ignorantly, that in socionics i am an ISFj (Fi Se). i am either that, or an INTp (Ni Te) -- those are not very different in many ways; and the most easily confused types in socionics. what i am certain of is that the functions have absolutely nailed me, and they aren't just dichotomies or stereotypes. theres a whole quadra within these that i identify with.


Hmm... Maybe Socionics is not as bad as I thought it was before. I'd just looked over it with my sister, and it seems very 'intricate'. Lots of devices that helps one clarify functions. As it does so it also confuses me too. I can use these devices to better understand the functions in mbti, but frankly, i think i've already understood them and see as much clarity as you do with socionics, perhaps with a different perspective. As a wise ENFP had told me "you can dealt with this whole function mumbo jumbo and whatnot" but people aren't math problems. Lol though I do still enjoy what Socionics has to offer, i prefer MBTI's "vagueness" because you can create your own opinion of it and interpret it differently, resulting in many different blogs, or forums dedicated to it. It's a little bit more fascinating. (funny because you're a T and you're looking Definite facts, and I'm looking for Ideals.)

So you've pretty much proved to me that Socionics is reliable, but there are alot of people who are going by that website that you linked a while ago. 0_o


----------



## Promethea

Monoquel said:


> Hmm... Maybe Socionics is not as bad as I thought it was before. I'd just looked over it with my sister, and it seems very 'intricate'. Lots of devices that helps one clarify functions. As it does so it also confuses me too. I can use these devices to better understand the functions in mbti, but frankly, i think i've already understood them and see as much clarity as you do with socionics, perhaps with a different perspective. As a wise ENFP had told me "you can dealt with this whole function mumbo jumbo and whatnot" but people aren't math problems. Lol though I do still enjoy what Socionics has to offer, i prefer MBTI's "vagueness" because you can create your own opinion of it and interpret it differently, resulting in many different blogs, or forums dedicated to it. It's a little bit more fascinating. (funny because you're a T and you're looking Definite facts, and I'm looking for Ideals.)
> 
> So you've pretty much proved to me that Socionics is reliable, but there are alot of people who are going by that website that you linked a while ago. 0_o


the only thing i have for you is keep studying all of it for yourself


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow

Monoquel said:


> Socionics is confusing. I prefer MBTI as it is less flawed. That's why it's more popular because you can read into it with much more ease. You can also see relationships with the same clarity (It's easy for me) When I read the description of INFp, I was pretty ticked when I saw "the romantic". I'm not very romantic AT ALL, same goes with plenty other infp's i know. When I see anything related to socionics, such a tables or graphs it looks like just a bunch of letters. I didn't know it had any depth to it. No offense but I priginally thought it was a tacky knock of of MBTI. If it really is that facilitating, what does it have to make it so?







Autumn Raven said:


> "During conversation INFps have a tendency to maintain eye contact and to touch their interlocutors hand."
> I most certainly do _not._


Both of you would actually be INFj under socionics. The j/p works differently than in MBTI. In socionics, if your top function is a judging function (Fi) then you are a j.

What this means is that introverts are swapped on the j/p under socionics, but extroverts would have the same type under both systems.


----------



## cyamitide

Monoquel said:


> Well in that case I apologize. Since your defending this so unflinchingly, there must be some good in socionics. Obviously most of us are confused by that website and our impression of it is crap. I'd like to hear something enlightening about it then. What does it do to surpass MBTI/ (note: disregard my past post. I really have no idea what the hell socionics does. c


 The most impressive thing that I have seen up to date has been this: Forms of Cognition. There is also some interesting discussion concerning application of jungian typology to social processes. In Socionics this is called quadra progression. What I like about Socionics is that it unites all the types into a single system and puts them all into a unified perspective. There is a notion in Socionics that is completely absent from MBTI called "the Socion" which is the total combination of all the 16 types. Then Socionics attempts to elucidate the meaning of interactions between all the types and what these mean in terms of the bigger picture (evolution of our society, cultural and political developments, and so on). In MBTI you are left hanging with respect to this kind of information.

MBTI, however, does have a few things that Socionics doesn't have, since they were developed independently, so both typologies have their useful parts and points of interest.

I find that Socionics in comparison to MBTI has a certain theoretical rigidity to it, which unfortunately prevents people from thinking independently and creatively. This is exacerbated by certain socionists who take a fundamentalist stance and trying to squelch any deviations from the main theory as Augusta has developed it 40 years ago. The nice thing about MBTI (and this forum) is that it lacks this kind of fundamentalism and rigidity, allowing people to explore things on their own and come up with their own theories.


----------



## Monoquel

NeedsNewNameNow said:


> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both of you would actually be INFj under socionics. The j/p works differently than in MBTI. In socionics, if your top function is a judging function (Fi) then you are a j.
> 
> What this means is that introverts are swapped on the j/p under socionics, but extroverts would have the same type under both systems.


O-o really? I don't see myself an INFj... But js an INFj different in socionics? Or how about the J and P functions; are they entirely different things?


----------



## Monoquel

cyamitide said:


> The most impressive thing that I have seen up to date has been this: Forms of Cognition. There is also some interesting discussion concerning application of jungian typology to social processes. In Socionics this is called quadra progression. What I like about Socionics is that it unites all the types into a single system and puts them all into a unified perspective. There is a notion in Socionics that is completely absent from MBTI called "the Socion" which is the total combination of all the 16 types. Then Socionics attempts to elucidate the meaning of interactions between all the types and what these mean in terms of the bigger picture (evolution of our society, cultural and political developments, and so on). In MBTI you are left hanging with respect to this kind of information.
> 
> MBTI, however, does have a few things that Socionics doesn't have, since they were developed independently, so both typologies have their useful parts and points of interest.
> 
> I find that Socionics in comparison to MBTI has a certain theoretical rigidity to it, which unfortunately prevents people from thinking independently and creatively. This is exacerbated by certain socionists who take a fundamentalist stance and trying to squelch any deviations from the main theory as Augusta has developed it 40 years ago. The nice thing about MBTI (and this forum) is that it lacks this kind of fundamentalism and rigidity, allowing people to explore things on their own and come up with their own theories.


Woah. This socion thing sounds pretty cool. I think I might look over on it. I think I might get into
Socionics, but it bothers me how the types are different in there. Because then I'd be something else, which I really just want to stick to what I have traditionally have. 

So what I've heard by all of you that it's good with comparing relationships. This is what I love about personality types, but I never had trouble doing that with mbti. Does Socionics give a more legitamite comparison(compared to my ideals)? How does that work?


----------

