A case for socionics

[KazeCraven]

I have no intention of arguing MBTI vs Socionics, and I have discussed at length elsewhere how neither is 'better' than the other. They simply emphasize different things. For example, MBTI assumes introverts mostly show their extroverted side, and Socionics assumes introverts mostly show their introverted side (hence the j-p "flipflop"). Also, one misconception that seems to deter many reasonable people from considering the theory is the visual identification. Yes, many socionists do this, but it is separate from the theory and is based on subtle cues. The bigger problem is that most of the information about Socionics is just terrible.

This site is probably the best place to learn about the theory. If you want to type yourself, Wikisocion is a great place to go. Start with the quadras and then check out Model A. Most of Classical Socionics is okay, but I'd encourage you to disregard the Renin dichotomies and the Romance styles. And if you want to talk about what you find, 16types.info is a great community for discussion of Socionics.

I have found Socionics more useful than the alternatives and would like to offer anyone still agonizing over their type a 'third option'. I never could identify with INTPs (except April, who I see has changed her name while I've been gone ), and when I finally did settle on my type, I inwardly declared the theory inaccurate. I take that back now, because I have seen things fit together from my new vantage point, but I am still very biased in favor of Socionics. Alternatively, I know I am ILI with only a shadow of a doubt. [Strike]I'd translate this to INTJ, though[/strike] I haven't been a typical one because I overuse Fi. (This doesn't necessarily make me good with it!)

I'm not promising any miracles, but I wanted to share this with you before I move on again, just in case. Feel free to ask questions.

 

[IndigoSensor]

To be perfectly honest I have always felt that socionics is just a steal from the basic principals of MBTI with a few more subjective ideas thrown into the mix. I have never particularly cared for the theory, however some people swear by it. I just personally find the cognitive functions and what not to be based on much more solid ground then this and thus I prefer that.

That being said I have explored socionics before though and I typically come out as INFj (EII) last time I checked (which was a while ago admitadly).

 

[Peppermint]

Why did you find it more useful?

 

[KazeCraven]

To be perfectly honest I have always felt that socionics is just a steal from the basic principals of MBTI with a few more subjective ideas thrown into the mix. I have never particularly cared for the theory, however some people swear by it. I just personally find the cognitive functions and what not to be based on much more solid ground then this and thus I prefer that.

That being said I have explored socionics before though and I typically come out as INFj (EII) last time I checked (which was a while ago admitadly).

I've long known where you stand, and I don't expect to convince you. But they are really both a steal from Jung, as you have seen that the information elements are more related to Jung's original definition than to MBTI's cognitive processes. If it was a steal from MBTI, they probably wouldn't have different interpretations about how the functions interact, such as the role of the most extroverted function and the 'shadow' functions.

Why did you find it more useful?

One of the biggest things is the usage of 'shadow' functions. I've always considered myself good with both types of logic, and poor with handling the ethical/Feeling side of things. It is true that I value one type over the other for most of them, but this aspect for MBTI was not easily understandable.

The other reason is the way it is framed, which is basically in terms of valuing one vs devaluing different information elements. Socionics has a well-defined structure for the role each function plays in the psyche (in MBTI terms, we'd call them the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, etc.). After reflecting on my own experience, I found my usage of them was more efficient.

That, and the quadras explained a lot to me, though I'm probably over-emphasizing their importance.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I noticed you have "INTJ(ILI)" in your MBTI description. Why is that so?

 

[KazeCraven]

I was playing around with the best way to represent my type, but I'm just going to change it to INTJ despite the fact that I disagree on the MBTI interpretation.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I pointed it out because although there are discrepancies, the practical INTP is the practical ILI. The only way to get INTJ and ILI is to do the J/P swap but that's assuming the functions are the same in both systems, which they are not.

 

[KazeCraven]

Ah, I did not mean to perpetuate the idea that there is a clear 1:1 mapping. But I find it more useful to say that the interpretation is the problem because otherwise we really are comparing apples and oranges. The J/P dichotomy is part of that interpretation, and so are the information elements.

 

[bickelz]

Was socionics before or after Jung? For some reason i thought it came before him.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Ah, I did not mean to perpetuate the idea that there is a clear 1:1 mapping. But I find it more useful to say that the interpretation is the problem because otherwise we really are comparing apples and oranges. The J/P dichotomy is part of that interpretation, and so are the information elements.

What you say does not register clearly in my mind.

Yes, interpretation and perspective are the problems, but:
1.) Practical INTP = practical ILI
2.) A function swap is more appropriate for a conversion if you are indeed the empirical type in MBTI
3.) Socionics functions =/= MBTI functions

I am confused because you type yourself as both INTJ and ILI. They are not the same practical types, thus you cannot practically be both. In theory, though, you may be both due to (mis)interpretation and perspective when you try to type yourself.

I'm sorry to complicate the matter, I am just trying to establish coherency.

Was socionics before or after Jung? For some reason i thought it came before him.

After. Also, for the record, the primary developer of Socionics theory claims she knew nothing of MBTI as Socionics was being formulated.

 

[KazeCraven]

EyeSeeCold, I wouldn't even bother with these theories if it was simply a matter of 'people who behave like INTPs/INTps'. It would simply be a way of stereotyping, and I can do that without these theories. I notice you label your MBTI as 'Human'. Tongue-in-cheek or not, I think my perspective helps us to relate to people as humans because we are taking into account how people see and think about the world rather than simply labeling people based on their past behavior. I can be decisive/directive in one situation and adaptive/passive in another. If I predict for the short-term, I am prepared and confident. If I neglect the short-term for the long-term, I am not prepared enough to be direct/decisive. So I can practically be both, just not at the same time.

Once people understand that individual differences can vary along the four Jungian dichotomies, the only real use of investigating these theories further is to elucidate the underlying "software". To emphasize the manifestation seems to imply you can literally have people change from ESTJ at work to ISTJ at home (or, more usually, to deny reality outright due to it conflicting with the theory, insisting people stay in a well-defined box of behavior), reducing the theory to the level of Big-5/OCEAN theories.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

EyeSeeCold, I wouldn't even bother with these theories if it was simply a matter of 'people who behave like INTPs/INTps'. It would simply be a way of stereotyping, and I can do that without these theories. I notice you label your MBTI as 'Human'. Tongue-in-cheek or not, I think my perspective helps us to relate to people as humans because we are taking into account how people see and think about the world rather than simply labeling people based on their past behavior. I can be decisive/directive in one situation and adaptive/passive in another. If I predict for the short-term, I am prepared and confident. If I neglect the short-term for the long-term, I am not prepared enough to be direct/decisive. So I can practically be both, just not at the same time.

That's not my point. While you may be able to utilize functions of a type(albeit with less conscious strength) you are never two types.

Once people understand that individual differences can vary along the four Jungian dichotomies, the only real use of investigating these theories further is to elucidate the underlying "software". To emphasize the manifestation seems to imply you can literally have people change from ESTJ at work to ISTJ at home (or, more usually, to deny reality outright due to it conflicting with the theory, insisting people stay in a well-defined box of behavior), reducing the theory to the level of Big-5/OCEAN theories.

I cannot even reply to this appropriately, along with the above response. I'm not sure you really understand Socionics theory and its approach to human psychology.

I mean no disrespect in the event that I appear that way. It is just that you have conflicting values and ideas pertaining to Socionics, and typology in general, that it makes any direct response largely deviant from the ILI-LII-INTP-INTJ disagreement.

 

[KazeCraven]

That's not my point. While you may be able to utilize functions of a type(albeit with less conscious strength) you are never two types.

Then what do you mean by a 'practical' INTP? Of course, I am never actually two types, but you are referring to it as if it were the Irrationality or 'p-ness' that is the primary factor.

I cannot even reply to this appropriately, along with the above response. I'm not sure you really understand Socionics theory and its approach to human psychology.

I assumed you were asking why I wanted to prioritize the the explanation over the actual manifestation, which in my mind was asking for my personal philosophy. So the question of coherence probably comes from the fact that I am only considering these theories from a pragmatic standpoint, and we perhaps disagree on which aspect of the theory is useful. Since my understanding has proved useful for me, I see no reason to reconsider my perspective.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Then what do you mean by a 'practical' INTP? Of course, I am never actually two types, but you are referring to it as if it were the Irrationality or 'p-ness' that is the primary factor.

By practical I mean the actual phenomenon, regardless of the system used. You cannot be two phenomenons at once. The phenomenon of INTP is the same phenomenon as ILI/INTp. Thus you cannot be the phenomenon of INTJ and the phenomenon of INTP, it's one or the other.

Irrationality is actually one of the primary factors in the INTP/ILI type, as per Jungian terminology. Situational rationality is something different from being a "Rational" type.

I assumed you were asking why I wanted to prioritize the the explanation over the actual manifestation, which in my mind was asking for my personal philosophy. So the question of coherence probably comes from the fact that I am only considering these theories from a pragmatic standpoint, and we perhaps disagree on which aspect of the theory is useful. How socionists intend to use it is irrelevant so long as it works.

Yes, practical use is up to the practitioner, but what is a prerequisite is that the practitioner has a fundamental and consistent understanding of the theory. Typing yourself both ILI and INTJ is conflicting and will lead to misconceptions and misinterpretations should you attempt to synthesize a theory based on the claim that they are the same.

 

[KazeCraven]

By practical I mean the actual phenomenon, regardless of the system used. You cannot be two phenomenons at once. The phenomenon of INTP is the same phenomenon as ILI/INTp. Thus you cannot be the phenomenon of INTJ and the phenomenon of INTP, it's one or the other.

Well, not exactly. For example, the detachment of an INTP is a logical and impersonal one, whereas the detachment of an ILI is more due to focus away from reality. More to the point, both ILI and INTJ focus on prediction of future events, whereas LII and INTP are more focused on logical coherence. And the irrationality/rationality is different enough from the idea of judging vs perceiving that the two do not necessarily need to coincide.

Yes, practical use is up to the practitioner, but what is a prerequisite is that the practitioner has a fundamental and consistent understanding of the theory. Typing yourself both ILI and INTJ is conflicting and will lead to misconceptions and misinterpretations should you attempt to synthesize a theory based on the claim that they are the same.

It is true that I am attempting to synthesize the theories, but I think typing myself ILI and INTP would lead to a different set of misconceptions. The fact of the matter is that there is no true 1:1 mapping, because, as you pointed out earlier, the interpretations of even the Jungian functions are distinctly different.

I suppose the statement that I really should recant is the 'translation' of ILI to INTJ. I am all for avoiding misconceptions, but they are effectively impossible to avoid.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Well, not exactly. For example, the detachment of an INTP is a logical and impersonal one, whereas the detachment of an ILI is more due to focus away from reality. More to the point, both ILI and INTJ focus on prediction of future events, whereas LII and INTP are more focused on logical coherence.

You're speaking of the theoretical types, which are not the same. I'm speaking of the phenomena both systems attempt to classify, this is why I included "practical". The theories conflict because one of them has an artificial dichotomy(J/P).

And the irrationality/rationality is different enough from the idea of judging vs perceiving that the two do not necessarily need to coincide.

That's not the idea either, though you are right.

Irrational in Socionics = xxxp.
Irrational in MBTI is still xxxP.
Perceiving in Socionics = Dominant perceiving function.
Perceiving in MBTI = Extraverted perception.

So regardless of anything else, Rational/Irrational are universal terms unaffected by J/P.

It is true that I am attempting to synthesize the theories, but I think typing myself ILI and INTP would lead to a different set of misconceptions. The fact of the matter is that there is no true 1:1 mapping, because, as you pointed out earlier, the interpretations of even the Jungian functions are distinctly different.

I suppose the statement that I really should recant is the 'translation' of ILI to INTJ. I am all for avoiding misconceptions, but they are effectively impossible to avoid.

From my view if you accept ILI/INTP you would realize the greater perspective and understand where and why the systems conflict and which types equal which.

Though, of course you cannot see it from my view, as you have your own in which you believe otherwise - understood. I've found the most effective approach in this predicament is to observe and study inter-type relationships in real-time for yourself. Luckily I've had the chance to gain experience while in college, so with acknowledged arrogance, I can honestly say I know what I'm talking about in regards to type coherency.

 

[KazeCraven]

From my view if you accept ILI/INTP you would realize the greater perspective and understand where and why the systems conflict and which types equal which.

Though, of course you cannot see it from my view, as you have your own in which you believe otherwise - understood. I've found the most effective approach in this predicament is to observe and study inter-type relationships in real-time for yourself. Luckily I've had the chance to gain experience while in college, so with acknowledged arrogance, I can honestly say I know what I'm talking about in regards to type coherency.

All I'll say to that is I accept neither MBTI nor Socionics as-is. I am more or less done with studying them and life experience shall do the rest.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

All I'll say to that is I accept neither MBTI nor Socionics as-is. I am more or less done with studying them and life experience shall do the rest.

That's fine, time is the best teacher after all.