Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In PerC, almost all Socionics-interested parties are likely to come from an MBTI background. In order to encourage more participation in Socionics (arguably a much more advanced and accurate psychological typing method than MBTI), I recommend following some general rules when not examining advanced topics:

- Refer to Socionics functions as "function locations" or something similar.
- Refer to IMEs as Cognitive Functions or specify that IME = cognitive function.
- Use MBTI function designation, such as Fe, Fi, Se, Ti, etc. AVOID using shapes.
- Clarify a type's three-letter designation with the MBTI equivalent (see below for example).
- NEVER use introverted four-letter designation unless you specify the intent. Example: "The IEI/INFp (INFJ in MBTI) has green eyes."
- Be patient with MBTI practitioners with questions; everyone has to start somewhere.

I've noticed a lack of all of these implored which will only alienate the MBTI community in a heavily MBTI-based forum from understanding or pursuing Socionics.

Obviously if the subject is about more advanced Socionics material, it may actually be more confusing to "reduce" the Socionics definitions to MBTI's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
Hi @Snow, I don't know if your post is a direct response to mine in the 'What is the difference between MBTI and socionics?' thread but there, I'm sorry, I basically argued the exact opposite for a lot of your points here. I only meant to present a different point of view and not to undermine what you said.

I think we both agree that there is difficulty in transitioning from MBTI to socionics, and that it would be great to encourage more people to take an interest in socionics - it has a lot to give over MBTI. We have different solutions to the same problem, and maybe the same approach won't work for everyone. It would be good if we could listen to each other's point of view, and perhaps work out something together? Because I think we really want the same thing ultimately.

- Refer to Socionics functions as "function locations" or something similar.
I agree it's important that newcomers aren't confused by the difference in that terminology, and just calling them 'functions' without clarification would lead to confusion. The problem with calling them 'function locations' is that people will continue to refer to IME's as functions and then get confused when moving on to more advanced topics where no-one calls them that. My approach to now is to call them functions and put a note explaining the difference so the newcomer can learn and progress in socionics. Would it be better to avoid the word 'function' all together refer to them as IME locations, allowing the newcomer to look up what it means and learn the difference?

- Refer to IMEs as Cognitive Functions or specify that IME = cognitive function.
That could cause the reverse confusion in that people will talk about functions and socionists will assume they mean function in the socionics sense. Also there is a distinction in how IMEs are understood in socionics and how cognitive functions are supposed to work in MBTI, by presenting them as two different things would help people to understand how they are different.

- Use MBTI function designation, such as Fe, Fi, Se, Ti, etc. AVOID using shapes.
Actually, I was the person who requested the shapes to be added to the smilies list here over a year ago, and it was popularly supported at the time. The reason I did it was actually because the MBTI-style designations were causing confusion to newcomers. I figured it was fine in advanced discussions to use Fe, Fi, etc., but newcomers would simply assume that we're talking about MBTI and join in the discussion with a very different understanding to what we were talking about. Whereas if you use the shapes, a newcomer may be inspired to look them up and learn what we're talking about. Also it makes no sense that what we call ethics has the letter F, etc.

- Clarify a type's three-letter designation with the MBTI equivalent (see below for example).
It's disputed whether they are equivalent, if that's your opinion and want to discuss it that's fine of course but not making that a hard and fast rule. Especially, it's probably better to present to newcomers only what already has broad acceptance among socionists, rather than areas of dispute.

- NEVER use introverted four-letter designation unless you specify the intent. Example: "The IEI/INFp (INFJ in MBTI) has green eyes."
I strongly agree (well, apart from the equivalent type part), I don't like the four-letter designations and I think they should only be used when talking about Jungian and Renin dichotomies where they are actually useful. Even then they should come with the clarification that, while we use F, T, j, and p, they are called ethics, logic, rational, and irrational in socionics, and socionics understanding of the dichotomies can differ from the conventional MBTI understanding.

- Be patient with MBTI practitioners with questions; everyone has to start somewhere.
I can't disagree there!

Obviously if the subject is about more advanced Socionics material, it may actually be more confusing to "reduce" the Socionics definitions to MBTI's.
Right, but I suppose my point is, how is someone going to progress to the advanced material if they're prevented from learning the terminology. If people are presented with things that look unfamiliar, are they not more likely to be curious and look up or ask about it?
 

·
Registered
SLI, ISTJ, 1w9, 164
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
Hmm... What about people who start with Socionics and don't know much about MBTI? Wouldn't half-MBTI half-Socionics terminology be even more confusing for them? And why even implement terminology from another systems (even if similar) when the system in question already has all terminology that is needed? Seems like unnecessary complication and definitions blurring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
Hmm... What about people who start with Socionics and don't know much about MBTI? Wouldn't half-MBTI half-Socionics terminology be even more confusing for them? And why even implement terminology from another systems (even if similar) when the system in question already has all terminology that is needed? Seems like unnecessary complication and definitions blurring.
That's pretty much my post in much fewer words, thanks!

I've been gone for a year, it's good to still see you around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
@ALongTime and @To_august

Both of you are addressing something else. I am addressing:

In PerC, almost all Socionics-interested parties are likely to come from an MBTI background. In order to encourage more participation in Socionics [...] I recommend following some general rules when not examining advanced topics
This comes from the observation that MBTI has been the 95% focal point of PerC (an estimate) and that Socionics is a far second. Here are some indicative statistics (although how indicative I do not know):
 

The MBTI Forum has 468 pages of posts.
MBTI Sub Forums:
ISTJ: 152
ISFJ: 123
ESTJ: 47
ESFJ: 52
ISTP: 181
ISFP: 151
ESTP: 77
ESFP: 52
INTJ: 420
INTP: 645
ENTJ: 501
ENTP: 371
INFJ: 861
INFP: 1001
ENFJ: 166
ENFP: 424

Total MBTI-related posts in PerC: 5,692

Compared to Socionics and its single subforum:

Socionics: 62
What's my Socionics Type: 49

Total Socionics-related posts in PerC: 111

(1.95% of MBTI or Socionics posts are in Socionics forums; 98.05% are in MBTI forums.)


Looking at MBTI posts compared to Socionics posts, I stand corrected: Socionics is not even 2% of all posts in those forums, not to mention compared to Enneagram and other personality discussion.

Obviously this isn't a perfect way to judge, but you can easily get the picture from this alone; MBTI in PerC is the dominant language. We can take advantage of this by incorporating some of (but not all) the techniques past Socionics have (again I would recommend avoiding the Socionics four-letter designation as that just causes confusion), such as referencing cognitive functions Jung-style (Ne, Ti, Fe, etc.), or we can stick to Socionics language and hope that a few stragglers will be interested enough to pursue it on their own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
@ALongTime and @To_august

Both of you are addressing something else. I am addressing:



This comes from the observation that MBTI has been the 95% focal point of PerC (an estimate) and that Socionics is a far second. Here are some indicative statistics (although how indicative I do not know):
 

The MBTI Forum has 468 pages of posts.
MBTI Sub Forums:
ISTJ: 152
ISFJ: 123
ESTJ: 47
ESFJ: 52
ISTP: 181
ISFP: 151
ESTP: 77
ESFP: 52
INTJ: 420
INTP: 645
ENTJ: 501
ENTP: 371
INFJ: 861
INFP: 1001
ENFJ: 166
ENFP: 424

Total MBTI-related posts in PerC: 5,692

Compared to Socionics and its single subforum:

Socionics: 62
What's my Socionics Type: 49

Total Socionics-related posts in PerC: 111

(1.95% of MBTI or Socionics posts are in Socionics forums; 98.05% are in MBTI forums.)


Looking at MBTI posts compared to Socionics posts, I stand corrected: Socionics is not even 2% of all posts in those forums, not to mention compared to Enneagram and other personality discussion.

Obviously this isn't a perfect way to judge, but you can easily get the picture from this alone; MBTI in PerC is the dominant language. We can take advantage of this by incorporating some of (but not all) the techniques past Socionics have (again I would recommend avoiding the Socionics four-letter designation as that just causes confusion), such as referencing cognitive functions Jung-style (Ne, Ti, Fe, etc.), or we can stick to Socionics language and hope that a few stragglers will be interested enough to pursue it on their own.
I think I understood your point already. I for one would wish for that gap to close and for socionics to become more popular here (but then I'm biased). My main concern is that using non-standard socionics terminology would confuse the two systems even more than they already are, which is already a big problem, and prevent anyone from being able to come to this subforum and learn about socionics. On a personal note I remember confusion with MBTI was initially a barrier for me coming here in the first place, it was only setting aside MBTI ideas that I was able to really learn about socionics. Look at enneagram, which is probably more popular here than socionics, that has no terminology in common with MBTI what so ever and seems to do just fine, the opposite, I think socionics is held back because of the terminology it does have in common.
 

·
Registered
SLI, ISTJ, 1w9, 164
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
@ALongTime and @To_august

Both of you are addressing something else. I am addressing:



This comes from the observation that MBTI has been the 95% focal point of PerC (an estimate) and that Socionics is a far second. Here are some indicative statistics (although how indicative I do not know):
 

The MBTI Forum has 468 pages of posts.
MBTI Sub Forums:
ISTJ: 152
ISFJ: 123
ESTJ: 47
ESFJ: 52
ISTP: 181
ISFP: 151
ESTP: 77
ESFP: 52
INTJ: 420
INTP: 645
ENTJ: 501
ENTP: 371
INFJ: 861
INFP: 1001
ENFJ: 166
ENFP: 424

Total MBTI-related posts in PerC: 5,692

Compared to Socionics and its single subforum:

Socionics: 62
What's my Socionics Type: 49

Total Socionics-related posts in PerC: 111

(1.95% of MBTI or Socionics posts are in Socionics forums; 98.05% are in MBTI forums.)


Looking at MBTI posts compared to Socionics posts, I stand corrected: Socionics is not even 2% of all posts in those forums, not to mention compared to Enneagram and other personality discussion.

Obviously this isn't a perfect way to judge, but you can easily get the picture from this alone; MBTI in PerC is the dominant language. We can take advantage of this by incorporating some of (but not all) the techniques past Socionics have (again I would recommend avoiding the Socionics four-letter designation as that just causes confusion), such as referencing cognitive functions Jung-style (Ne, Ti, Fe, etc.), or we can stick to Socionics language and hope that a few stragglers will be interested enough to pursue it on their own.
I get your point, but potentially it will do more harm than bring any sort of advantages. Discussing "advanced topics" with proper Socionics terminology and "not so advanced topics" with part MBTI part Socionics terminology is profoundly confusing. I also don't think that it's a good idea to build anybody's understanding of anything on misconceptions.

Anyway, nobody is forced to learn any terminology. If someone just wants to know their type, they can post questionnaire and wait for someone to give them typing. But if they want to understand the system and how it works, there's no other option but dedicate time to it and actually learn stuff. Socionics terminology isn't that difficult anyways. Surely not more difficult than MBTI or Enneagram ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
I extremely disagree with this approach, precisely because it actually does the opposite of what you seek to promote, which is easing the access from the MBTI into socionics.

A few points below:


- Refer to Socionics functions as "function locations" or something similar.
This is confusing for several reasons:

1. By functions, do you mean the functional blocks of ego, superego, super-id and id in socionics and the respective functions e.g. function 1 to 8 in model A, or are you

2. referring to IEs/information elements, that best translates into the MBTI usage of the term "function"? Because these are not the same or even remotely translatable from one system to another.

It is important to keep these distinctions apart, or people will in fact become increasingly confused because the context cannot clarify whether we mean a function in the model A, a function in the MBTI or an IE.

- Refer to IMEs as Cognitive Functions or specify that IME = cognitive function.
This does not follow either, because an IME is not the same as an IE. An IE is a type of information element, the aspect of information any person can pay attention to. It is the closest to being equivalent to a "cognitive function" in the MBTI. However, an IME is the exchange of information (Information Metabolic Exchange) and suggests how people communicate between each other; it is an integral aspect of intertype theory. It is however not the same as an IE or even a cognitive function, as the IME is about how receptive people are at metabolizing specific information elements e.g. valued/unvalued, dimensionality etc.

- Use MBTI function designation, such as Fe, Fi, Se, Ti, etc. AVOID using shapes.
I think people in general tend to use the Jungian annotations for the IEs, but some people also use Gulenko's (but I think these should be avoided unless clarified because of how abstract they are), but the shapes are fine, imo, since they are canon and Gulenko's annotations are not.

- Clarify a type's three-letter designation with the MBTI equivalent (see below for example).
Absolutely not, since people do not even intrinsically agree on how MBTI types translate into socionics assuming that they even do (some people don't agree on that either).

- NEVER use introverted four-letter designation unless you specify the intent. Example: "The IEI/INFp (INFJ in MBTI) has green eyes."
- Be patient with MBTI practitioners with questions; everyone has to start somewhere.
Honestly, I think the four-letter annotation should be avoided in general as people get confused why lower vs upper case J/P.


tl;dr keep socionics terminology strictly to socionics in order to demarcate the two systems apart which will over time actually make it easier for people to grasp the theoretical content of socionics since many of the terms cannot and are not directly translatable into MBTI and vice versa. Trying to translate the two just creates unnecessary confusion for people that are willing to learn socionics since socionics is clearly not the MBTI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
@Snow I think it's a nice idea, but personally having come over from MBTI to Socionics, I found it completely fine to have all the jargon - so long as, when I asked for clarification, someone explained what it meant. The majority of people on this board are very helpful and offer a lot of sources to help people new to the topic learn. But most of the responsibility is on that person to put time aside to learn the system. So long as they can ask for help, I don't see the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
@ALongTime, @To_august, @Entropic, @owlet

All of you bring solid points to the conversation, most of which I agree with. However I still believe the value of providing "MBTI-relatable material" in a forum where Socionics is less than 2% of the conversation would be a wise move in order to spread Socionics (arguably a better and more accurate system than MBTI) to the people here.

I stand by the argument that ensuring they stay separate will only alienate most interested parties whom are already invested in MBTI.

I encourage everyone to include MBTI terminology as best as you can in order to facilitate interest and learning from MBTI hobbyists here in PerC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
@ALongTime, @To_august, @Entropic, @owlet

All of you bring solid points to the conversation, most of which I agree with. However I still believe the value of providing "MBTI-relatable material" in a forum where Socionics is less than 2% of the conversation would be a wise move in order to spread Socionics (arguably a better and more accurate system than MBTI) to the people here.
If you want to promote socionics, isn't it better to actually focus on the strengths socionics has to offer so people feel compelled to learn its language, as opposed to simply making socionics into some strange family member to the MBTI?

I stand by the argument that ensuring they stay separate will only alienate most interested parties whom are already invested in MBTI.
How so? What evidence do you have which would prove this true?

I encourage everyone to include MBTI terminology as best as you can in order to facilitate interest and learning from MBTI hobbyists here in PerC.
And I think you will find that people will ultimately end up discussing MBTI stuff in socionics as opposed to actually discussing socionics, which is what happens when you see people using MBTI terminology, which again defeats the purpose that you seek to achieve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
@ALongTime , @To_august , @Entropic , @owlet

All of you bring solid points to the conversation, most of which I agree with. However I still believe the value of providing "MBTI-relatable material" in a forum where Socionics is less than 2% of the conversation would be a wise move in order to spread Socionics (arguably a better and more accurate system than MBTI) to the people here.

I stand by the argument that ensuring they stay separate will only alienate most interested parties whom are already invested in MBTI.

I encourage everyone to include MBTI terminology as best as you can in order to facilitate interest and learning from MBTI hobbyists here in PerC.
In that case, wouldn't it be worth writing up a comprehensive yet straightforward guide to help people who are new to the topic with the system, especially as most sources are going to be using the jargon? It could be stickied at the top of the forum and people could then direct newcomers to it if they're at all confused about terms being used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
If you want to promote socionics, isn't it better to actually focus on the strengths socionics has to offer so people feel compelled to learn its language, as opposed to simply making socionics into some strange family member to the MBTI?
How is "focusing on the strengths" [of Socionics] exclusive? Why can't we do both? Do you really feel that most people will "feel compelled to learn [a new language]" just to learn a "potentially better" system? It may not be as complicated as a new verbal language, but it's a helluva lot more complicated than learning from a perspective they are already familiar with.

How so? What evidence do you have which would prove this true?
I have no doubt there are thousands of psychological studies which would suggest people learn, become interested in, and pursue subjects which they already have some level of familiarity with as opposed to subjects which are entirely foreign to them. Must I find some?

And I think you will find that people will ultimately end up discussing MBTI stuff in socionics as opposed to actually discussing socionics, which is what happens when you see people using MBTI terminology, which again defeats the purpose that you seek to achieve.
A common marketing technique is to involve people in something other than their own service to sell the service. For example, many gas stations sell milk and bread to get people into their business and purchase their petroleum.

I'm sure that the benefit of having more people involved in the socionics world (again, we are talking about PerC here) would outweigh the fact that many of those people still stick to MBTI conversations; at least they would be in the Socionics world in the first place.

Regardless, it seems we disagree. That's an acceptable stance for me; my perspective is that no matter which way you look at it, the sacrifice of "tainting" Socionics with MBTI is well worth encouraging many more to participate (here on PerC). Your perspective is that the sacrifice will cause more confusion and will not be worth the damage to Socionics knowledge. I agree with many of your points, I simply believe that choosing my option is the best of two evils.

In that case, wouldn't it be worth writing up a comprehensive yet straightforward guide to help people who are new to the topic with the system, especially as most sources are going to be using the jargon? It could be stickied at the top of the forum and people could then direct newcomers to it if they're at all confused about terms being used.
I'm working on that when I have time. (See my signature which links to this entry-level "MBTI to Socionics" guide.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
@ALongTime, @To_august, @Entropic, @owlet

All of you bring solid points to the conversation, most of which I agree with. However I still believe the value of providing "MBTI-relatable material" in a forum where Socionics is less than 2% of the conversation would be a wise move in order to spread Socionics (arguably a better and more accurate system than MBTI) to the people here.

I stand by the argument that ensuring they stay separate will only alienate most interested parties whom are already invested in MBTI.

I encourage everyone to include MBTI terminology as best as you can in order to facilitate interest and learning from MBTI hobbyists here in PerC.
I appreciate your intention is to promote socionics and to encourage more people at PerC to take an interest, and I share that.

Unfortunately I just disagree with that method and think it will be counterproductive, for the reasons that everyone has said. I also don't have much personal interest in relearning MBTI terminology and a way of thinking that I've consciously worked at unlearning. Now, I think that there's more we could do to make socionics more accessible, unfortunately though any method I can think of would all involve encouraging people to start from scratch without any MBTI biases. Perhaps though, with the similar goals at least, we can still find a way to work together avoiding conflict.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
In that case, wouldn't it be worth writing up a comprehensive yet straightforward guide to help people who are new to the topic with the system, especially as most sources are going to be using the jargon? It could be stickied at the top of the forum and people could then direct newcomers to it if they're at all confused about terms being used.
I was half thinking of doing something like that myself when I returned to PerC, a simple guide that just explains maybe IM elements and the basics of model A, links to further reading, that could be used as a starting point with the main aim being to show how it isn't MBTI. It's just that it would be contradictory to @Snow 's guide, so it would be good to work out some common ground if possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
How is "focusing on the strengths" [of Socionics] exclusive? Why can't we do both? Do you really feel that most people will "feel compelled to learn [a new language]" just to learn a "potentially better" system? It may not be as complicated as a new verbal language, but it's a helluva lot more complicated than learning from a perspective they are already familiar with.
Hm, see going with the 'learning a new language' analogy, I'd say it's better for people to learn the language right from the get-go, rather than learning 'something like the language that's easier but you can't use with language sources'. To learn something new, people mostly just need a clear explanation and to have their questions answered, rather than having something changed.

I'm working on that when I have time. (See my signature which links to this entry-level "MBTI to Socionics" guide.)
That's good - I didn't mean you specifically had to do it (maybe a few people, or something), but a guide for new people is a useful tool.
(I have one minor suggestion, just about the j/p switch, if you don't mind - it seems to be to indicate dominant perceiving or judging types. So that's why it changed for the introverted types, as INTJ in MBTI is a dominant Ni user, so in Socionics, with Ni base, it's INTp. I don't know if that's very necessary or not though. It's just something that made it logical.)

I was half thinking of doing something like that myself when I returned to PerC, a simple guide that just explains maybe IM elements and the basics of model A, links to further reading, that could be used as a starting point with the main aim being to show how it isn't MBTI. It's just that it would be contradictory to @Snow 's guide, so it would be good to work out some common ground if possible.
Yes, I think something that explained the jargon, plus things like why the types are written EII or ESE and other small technical things that can catch people out. Maybe people could pool their ideas, then have them put together in a consistent format? (It might be a bit of a project though..)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
How is "focusing on the strengths" [of Socionics] exclusive? Why can't we do both? Do you really feel that most people will "feel compelled to learn [a new language]" just to learn a "potentially better" system? It may not be as complicated as a new verbal language, but it's a helluva lot more complicated than learning from a perspective they are already familiar with.
It becomes a problem when the two approaches cause confusion and can prevent you from properly learning the other, but I think you've acknowledged this anyway with your lesser of two evils argument.

I would add though that I think there's plenty of a 'market' for people who have become dissatisfied with MBTI for one reason or another (there are many reasons), who would want to try something new and completely different and I think that's how a lot of people get into socionics already. I would also wager that there are already plenty of people who come here for MBTI and end up getting into enneagram as well even though that's an entirely different language.

Yes, I think something that explained the jargon, plus things like why the types are written EII or ESE and other small technical things that can catch people out. Maybe people could pool their ideas, then have them put together in a consistent format? (It might be a bit of a project though..)
I'd keep it very basic, perhaps not even get too far into quadras or intertypes, beyond acknowledging their existence, just "the basic information you need to know to have an intelligent conversation about socionics". Just the basic terminology and a feel for how model A works, perhaps.

I would leave out anything that's in dispute, like the relationship with MBTI, but also things like +/-, subtypes, Renins, other models etc., we all have our opinions on these things and they're fun to discuss, but keep it to 'classical socionics' we can almost all agree on.
 

·
Registered
SLI, ISTJ, 1w9, 164
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
@ALongTime, @To_august, @Entropic, @owlet

All of you bring solid points to the conversation, most of which I agree with. However I still believe the value of providing "MBTI-relatable material" in a forum where Socionics is less than 2% of the conversation would be a wise move in order to spread Socionics (arguably a better and more accurate system than MBTI) to the people here.

I stand by the argument that ensuring they stay separate will only alienate most interested parties whom are already invested in MBTI.

I encourage everyone to include MBTI terminology as best as you can in order to facilitate interest and learning from MBTI hobbyists here in PerC.
I'm still not getting how that would facilitate more interest. The bottom line for Socionics to work at all is to know your Socionics type. Otherwise nothing would work. Intertype wouldn't work (not that it perfectly works anyway, but general trends supposed to be apparent), quadras wouldn't work, information metabolism as a whole wouldn't make sense. And in order for all of it to make sense one should figure out their Socionics type, and it can not be achieved as easily as just translating letter-codes from MBTI to Socionics. Majority of people will end up thinking their conflictors are their duals or will struggle to associate themselves with quadras or any particular IE that is defined differently, and as a result - > "Socionics is bullshit" - > "MBTI is way easier and familiar and it makes more sense" - > *off to MBTI subforums".

Learning new terminology isn't the problem. Widespread popularity of MBTI that leads to systems mingling in the western society is the problem. (Anybody who is interested in humans' workings can develop their own models on the basis of both systems and anything else they want to of course, and maybe it will result in a more accurate and better representation of the human psyche as a whole, but we're not there yet, and sorta-MBTI-kinda-Socioncs-thing Socionics turns into does not provide for that kind of research or development.)

A common marketing technique is to involve people in something other than their own service to sell the service. For example, many gas stations sell milk and bread to get people into their business and purchase their petroleum.
This is not a correct analogy. Gas stations don't claim that milk and bread and petroleum are the same or serve the same purposes, do they? The correct one would something like to offer additional Enneagram typing or palm reading, or anything else in addition to Socionics.

I'm sure that the benefit of having more people involved in the socionics world (again, we are talking about PerC here) would outweigh the fact that many of those people still stick to MBTI conversations; at least they would be in the Socionics world in the first place.

Regardless, it seems we disagree. That's an acceptable stance for me; my perspective is that no matter which way you look at it, the sacrifice of "tainting" Socionics with MBTI is well worth encouraging many more to participate (here on PerC). Your perspective is that the sacrifice will cause more confusion and will not be worth the damage to Socionics knowledge. I agree with many of your points, I simply believe that choosing my option is the best of two evils.
They wouldn't be in the Socionics world, but simply discussing MBTI stuff in Socionics subforum. Do we really need another subforum for MBTI discussions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
How is "focusing on the strengths" [of Socionics] exclusive? Why can't we do both? Do you really feel that most people will "feel compelled to learn [a new language]" just to learn a "potentially better" system? It may not be as complicated as a new verbal language, but it's a helluva lot more complicated than learning from a perspective they are already familiar with.
Why do people learn a new language? Usually because that language offers something other languages do not. It could be because it sounds cooler, is more interesting or helps you land a particular job etc. The problem, as with all learning, in order to progress from more simple to more complex content, is that you need to get the foundation right from the get go. If you don't, you'll spend a great deal amount of time simply re-learning content in order to create that proper foundation and you in actuality don't end up learning anything of proper content, because what you learned at the start can't be applied later. I mean, say you want to learn Japanese. It could be possible to study it entirely romanized so you never really have to learn Japanese sign language (of which there are several), or perhaps you only learn katakana which is what Japanese use when translating English and other non-Japanese alphabets/written languages into Japanese. You would eventually become decently proficient in Japanese but you wouldn't be able to read it at all. Why? You never learned kanji, which is the foundation of Japanese, and all other Japanese sign variations build upon kanji. Even if we assume that you know Chinese prior, you would still have to suspend your skill in Chinese and realize that Japanese may use different rules or interpret certain Chinese signs differently; so while Chinese is somewhat translatable into Japanese, they are still different languages and this difference must be respected in order to learn Japanese properly.

Taking this analogy back to this forum, we see what happens when you mix MBTI functions with socionics on the MBTI subreddit; people pretty much use the systems interchangeably and make no real delineations between the two, losing out on the actual theoretical depth of both socionics and the MBTI in that both fundamentally do take Jung's original ideas in two very different directions. This happens in here as well, where we sometimes see people confusing the MTBI and socionics because of mixed terminology, so people that are not at all versed with socionics come in here to discuss something socionics-related because it for example said "Describe what an Fe type is like" in the title. That may all be fine and dandy in the MBTI, but in socionics, everyone has and can use, Fe, so this becomes much more nonsensical, especially when we begin to discuss it within the framework of the MBTI by assuming that an Fe type is someone with Fe explicitly in the ego block. Do you see the difference and why this is problematic?

I have no doubt there are thousands of psychological studies which would suggest people learn, become interested in, and pursue subjects which they already have some level of familiarity with as opposed to subjects which are entirely foreign to them. Must I find some?
The issue isn't the familiarity, but the issue is how this familiarity is used in order to facilitate learning. See my example of how Chinese as a skill can be translated to learning Japanese in the above.

A common marketing technique is to involve people in something other than their own service to sell the service. For example, many gas stations sell milk and bread to get people into their business and purchase their petroleum.
Yes, but you aren't buying petroleum as milk and bread, are you? People that buy petroleum do that knowing very well that petroleum is very different from milk and bread and has very different uses from milk and bread. They are not equivalent or similar to one another. @To_august explained why this analogy doesn't work to you as well, and I agree with her. Consider this version of your analogy instead:

You go to a bookstore to buy cooking books. This book store specializes in cooking books of all kinds, so this bookstore obviously advertises its cooking books. However, it also happen to sell books about Japanese sign language, so would someone want to pick up Japanese, they can pick up a book about how to learn Japanese, as well. Cooking books and Japanese language books are very different kinds of books and you can't apply them interchangeably in their respective contexts. A Japanese language book is useless when trying to learn cooking, and a cooking book is useless when trying to learn Japanese. What both books have in common is that they teach you a specific kind of skill and in some regards how they do that may be somewhat translatable between the two, but that's also where the similarity ends.

I'm sure that the benefit of having more people involved in the socionics world (again, we are talking about PerC here) would outweigh the fact that many of those people still stick to MBTI conversations; at least they would be in the Socionics world in the first place.
But why? If this happens, is it really MBTI or socionics that they are talking about, then?

Regardless, it seems we disagree. That's an acceptable stance for me; my perspective is that no matter which way you look at it, the sacrifice of "tainting" Socionics with MBTI is well worth encouraging many more to participate (here on PerC). Your perspective is that the sacrifice will cause more confusion and will not be worth the damage to Socionics knowledge. I agree with many of your points, I simply believe that choosing my option is the best of two evils.
I don't see why this must be an issue of different kinds of evils and yours is simply the lesser one, since it assumes that you are presenting some kind of forced choice option of how we must move forward in order to avoid the death of socionics, or whatever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Right, but I suppose my point is, how is someone going to progress to the advanced material if they're prevented from learning the terminology. If people are presented with things that look unfamiliar, are they not more likely to be curious and look up or ask about it?
Seee...now that is going to vary for people. Some will, yah, but I imagine some will use it as a reason to avoid the subject.

I think you make great points against Snow's, but I don't know that either you or Snow are "right" in this matter. Different people need a different approach.

Personally, I prefer to simply write extended posts and mention the basic differences that are pertinent, and when someone expresses interest in Socionics I write up a little intro and give links out like candy, and tell 'em that I can clarify things as needed and so can this forum. ^^

EDIT: read most of the posts now. Dayum. I'm curious why people getting a correct understanding is a goal for some, and why getting more people even if they have an incorrect understanding is a goal. Why hold these intrinsic assumptions about what is better? It seems to me that you could get people interested and let people gain their own understandings after giving them the "bug". And if you give less sources, then the other person brings their fresh new perspective in. Someone coming in with a new idea of how it all works could refresh all of our minds and our understanding - but would that happen if we give all the information beforehand? Our own understanding isn't more correct or better necessarily. We must strive to gain that understanding, but I don't know that we'll ever reach it. The journey is the point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: owlet
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top