Personality Cafe banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
...does this mean that one system is false and the other is true? Or does this mean that they are both false? Or does this mean that they are both half-true and half-false?

One thing I do know is that they cannot both be true, as there is only one universal reality. Physics has only one relativity theory for example. If another theory comes up that is incompatible with relativity theory yet appears to be more credible and in-line with the evidence (=reality) then relativity theory has to be abandonned, otherwise science becomes contradictory and will be sucked down into the negative vortex of cognitive dissonance, so it becomes pseudoscience instead. So, why doesn't this principle apply to the psychology of personality typing? Why do we have more than one system whom appear to contradict eachother and are therefore incompatible?

I think I have the answer: Because it is already a pseudoscience (newsflash). Credible psychologists have collectively branded these typing systems as "pop-"psychology, meaning pseudopsychology. Why? Because as these theories stand currently they contradict eachother and hold no real empirical value. Also, no attempt has been made from either side (mbti/socionics) to try and synchronize the two into a universal theory. Currently, both systems are just a bunch of assumptions. Two house of cards. And even though socionics appears more credible and scientific, it is only appearance. It is a marketing ploy. Socionics is actually worse than MBTI, because it desperately seems to look for logical structure in people's heads, like a IT programmer searches for the logical framework on which a computer program is built. (People aren't fucking robots!!! (no, not even ISTJ's) My god...) Why would it? Is biology logical? No it isn't. Logic is lineair, fixed and closed, while biology is dynamic, fluid and open. I'd suspect you would find even less structure in people's actual personalities. Hence why even though we all have roughly the same DNA, we still have so incredibly diverse personalities, almost impossible to pin down in binary code like sociology seems to try. Look how hard it is to replicate the human genome? You honestly think the personality genome would be any less complex? You really think the following stupid pic holds any realistic value whatsoever? You really think this is worthy of your attention????

Whoever came up with this must have been a total lunatic. There is not any other explanation how you can draw such conclusions besides that you're fucking crazy and assumpteous. They're just madmen who are trying to make money by selling theories and make money by stealing Jung's work and twisting it to their end. They're the modern version of the gipsy woman describing yourself and your future by looking in her crystal ball combined with your zodiac sign. And you're also wasting your potential by allowing your heads to be filled with this crap instead of something more real.

Furthermore, I think all this idiocracy ultimately stems from the false materialistic worldview still dominating the corporate western world which views people as biological machines (machines have structure in them), now extended from biology to psychology (psychological machines). Although the dam is slowly starting to crack:

Disinformation everywhere it seems. Yet never has it disguised itself so well as is now. Although we all know subconsciously that personality typing is as unscientific as your mother's boobs, we rarely listen to our subconscious (our gut). If we did, we would stop trying to make sense out of these insensible frameworks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
873 Posts
It's a neat concern, but nope, actually MBTI is false one, if you're looking at it like that.

Socionics is actually taught in colleges all around europe, MBTI is only taught by career advisors to help and pick them a job that suits with your natural talents and strenghts.

Jung's theories and their deriatives are not trying to explain the whole human psyche, but something about it that can be organized or explained. Socionics is more advanced in that matter, taking the Jung's work to a new level. Not a lot of people are buying MBTI/Socionics, because it's still in development and research.

If you're saying that human behavior is unexplainable and random, it's like these religious people in the middle ages who stated "thou shalt not question the works of our Lord, He createth it this way because He wanteth so! There is no logic to seek in what is made so by our Lord!" to everyone who wanted to research natural sciences.

You can always type people, and find out something about their behaviour that will help you understand them. I have personally noted that even real life people who are strongly into a certain MBTI type, usually act or say things within the confines of that type. Whenever I have began to doubt or abhor MBTI/Socionics theory, because of some flaw, it always turns out that I typed the person wrong, but the system is still pretty flawless.

Even the socionics in it's all complexity only explains about 10% of all aspects of human behaviour, so we can't expect too much from it. In the future, it will be probably more complete.

Also, if anybody asks me "I bet Socionics/MBTI cannot be proven, or it has no practical application!" , then it has infinite benefit when you're in a groupwork, and you need a way to quickly assume how to approach or motivate people to work in a way that they will not become hesistant or reluctant to cooperate. You can't go wrong when you find an ISTJ in your group, and you approach to them saying that they did a proper job, instead of giving them a hype about their successful future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Random Ness

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
There's hard science, there's soft science and there's pseudoscience. The respectable districts of the personality field pretty much unavoidably fall in the soft science middle of the spectrum — which puts them in a different category than chemistry, but also in a substantially different category than astrology.

Both the MBTI and Big Five now have decades of studies behind them, so calling either one "just a bunch of assumptions" is just plain contrary to the facts. For more, see this post.

It also makes no sense to say that, if either the MBTI or Socionics is "true," the other must be "false." As you probably know, there's a lot of overlap between the two, just like there's a tremendous amount of overlap between the MBTI and Big Five. McCrae and Costa are arguably the leading Big Five psychologists, and they've said they think the MBTI and Big Five probably each have things to learn from the other — and the same may well be true of the MBTI and Socionics.

Almost nobody argues that any current personality typology is "true" in the sense of not having plenty of room for further improvement, and there are certainly specific aspects of each typology that will necessarily prove to have been "false" (to one degree or other) if it turns out that an inconsistent aspect of one or more of the other typologies is "true."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I understand if you think I'm being irrational, but I'm going with my gut on this one. Through personal life experience I have found out that my gut is right 9 times out of 10. (And no, if you're thinking that my gut is Ne or Fi, you're false. Gut is not a cognitive function.) Also, the rational mind is not necessarily 'rational', but the majority of what it does is rationalization, which is actually nothing more than seeking conscious validation behind your inherint unconscious bias. If you're biased towards MBTI, you'll find 'proof' of MBTI. If you're biased towards socionics, you'll find 'proof' of socionics. Yet this proof is not actual proof at all. It is just internet research specifically chosen so it validates (instead of contradicts) your theories/belief systems.

The rational mind is also easily manipulated unlike the gut, which is grounded to your roots. By ignoring it you thereby loose your roots. Loose your roots = open to manipulation. (Gut = alpha brainwaves = subconscious mind. Rational mind = beta brainwaves = conscious mind. Manipulation/hypnosis happens at alpha/subconscious level, undetected by the beta/rational mind. What the rational mind does in these moments is rationalization, instead of true reasoning which only happens when the rational mind does the bidding of the gut.) To one who has not personally found out the wisdom of the gut, I have no desire to argue with you.

My gut tells me to drop this stuff, yet not completely. Keep the bottom lines but don't take it serious or delve too deep into it considering its current state is what is says. It tells me that anyone who does actually take it very serious like the socionics peeps are mentally imbalanced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
It's a neat concern, but nope, actually MBTI is false one, if you're looking at it like that.

Socionics is actually taught in colleges all around europe, MBTI is only taught by career advisors to help and pick them a job that suits with your natural talents and strenghts.
That is because socionics is more complex/harder to understand, hence more study material, hence more $$. Colleges are businesses too. They sell knowledge. Whether this knowledge is correct or not is not necessarily of importance (there are exceptions, like medical majors). And if you think otherwise, e.g. that colleges always sell correct knowledge because they are the "intellectual authorities", then you are playing right into their hands. Quantity over quality is the name of the capitalist game. Socionics is exactly this, quantity. A huge pile of assumptions not given a second thought of whether or not these assumptions actually hold any merit. Yet they package these assumptions so that they resonate with the rational mind ("It sounds reasonable." - Yep, it does, but it ISN'T, it only SOUNDS so!), very similar to how you like you can package a crappy product in expensive coating and packaging, combined with brilliant marketing to fool you into thinking it's actually a quality product. Colleges easily fall for such "intellectual marketing". After all, colleges - unlike people - don't have guts, they are just beta brainwave places.

So when I say 'credible psychologists' I'm not talking about college peeps, I'm talking about actual psychologists, you know, those guys who have left the BS of college long behind them and are in real life right now.

Also, the fact that MBTI instead of socionics is used by career advisors does not invalidate the theory at all, but is actually proof that this theory is slightly more down to earth, hence more realistic and empirical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
873 Posts
My gut tells me to drop this stuff, yet not completely. Keep the bottom lines but don't take it serious or delve too deep into it considering its current state is what is says. It tells me that anyone who does actually take it very serious like the socionics peeps are mentally imbalanced.

I don't know how you define as serious, but it depends on how deep are you willing to go for obtaining as complete understanding on human psychology as possible. Socionics is more complex, but offers much more new information.

Staying with Keirsey version, which is the most simplified view of MBTI, is essentially a kids-edition type of thing. For example, socionics expands the view of cognitive functions that is pretty straightforward in MBTI theory.

Socionics just expands the Jung's theory, offers new points of views.

That is because socionics is more complex/harder to understand, hence more study material, hence more $$
Socionics does not sound like a good business opportunity, it needs close attention and quite a lot of learning while offering simply a better understanding of the concept behing 16 Jung's types.

Learning socionics is almost like a physicist taking advanced mathematics. The physicist cannot apply the math in his science research, but understanding math broadens the understanding of physics.

Colleges hardly can make large money from offering knowledge. The best example would be conspiracy theorists selling their movies and collecting donations for their sites/blogs/forums/newspapers, which is purely earning a dime or two for a fanfic that many ppl take seriously.

Colleges usually teach a field when they have experts on this field, a respected peer-reviewed psychologist doctors and professors. They have someone who see socionics as a something worthy to implement into their course, while there are no legitimate professors teaching conspiracy theories. This proves the point that socionics is developed by the people who know what they are doing, and there is no shame in learning it.

Quantity over quality is the name of the capitalist game. Socionics is exactly this, quantity. A huge pile of assumptions not given a second thought of whether or not these assumptions actually hold any merit.
Socionics is based on Jung's theory, and the founder of socionics was a highly respected Lithuanian psychologist. Why should serious psychologists waste their time on producing bullshit?

So when I say 'credible psychologists' I'm not talking about college peeps, I'm talking about actual psychologists, you know, those guys who have left the BS of college long behind them and are in real life right now.
Again, when something cannot be applied, it's not useless. Very large part of serious science cannot be applied, proved in concrete numbers and examples, or implemented. It serves as a way to broaden your understanding in parts of science that deals with finding practical channels and applications for that field of science. As the user reckful stated, psychology is a soft science, still falling into a category where not every single aspect can be practically applied.

What good is in broadening the understanding?

Well, the MBTI approach is composing types through using 8 letters:

Is the person introvert or extrovert?
Is the person preferring intuitive approach or primarly referring to their 5 senses?
Is the person using logical rationalization or emotional rationalisation?
Is the person using spontaneous approach or the orderly approach?

This is very straightforward and practical, but contains faults. The cognitive function theory states that the Fi in INFP's is a judging function (assessing ethics and enforcing morals) while Ni in INFJ's is a perceiving function (perceiving consequences and picturing the endgoals). How can this be that the INFP appears more judgemental than INFJ, it's contradicting!!!

Well, socionics improves this concept by removing the contradiction and specificating the meanings of cognitive functions, and placing around the last letters of introvert types.

The bottom line is, you can feel free to take socionics seriously or see it as a load of crap, but I refuse to agree that socionics is a ploy of capitalists, or a pseudoscience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Random Ness

·
Registered
Joined
·
924 Posts
If you're biased towards MBTI, you'll find 'proof' of MBTI. If you're biased towards socionics, you'll find 'proof' of socionics. Yet this proof is not actual proof at all. It is just internet research specifically chosen so it validates (instead of contradicts) your theories/belief systems.
You argue that your personal "gut" reasoning is somehow more objectively true than any kind of structured and empirical research and then expect the above claim to be taken seriously?

Have you actually looked into any of the research? Why should one dude's gut be more evidence than what can actually be observed, defined, and tested (individual personality dimensions and subsequent preferences)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
I understand if you think I'm being irrational, but I'm going with my gut on this one. Through personal life experience I have found out that my gut is right 9 times out of 10.
Gut feelings are easily changed when you learn new things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KraChZiMan
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top