Personality Cafe banner

Which personality typing do you prefer? Socionics or MBTI?

  • Socionics

    Votes: 12 13.6%
  • MBTI

    Votes: 66 75.0%
  • Eh??? Is there a difference???

    Votes: 10 11.4%

  • Total voters
    88
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Which personality typing do you prefer to use?? Socionics or MBTI?

Appreciate if you can also explain why you prefer it to the other......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Socionics - When you get into the cognitive function differences between Socionics and MBTI you will notice some differences. I find that Socionics is vastly superior and accurate to Jung's explanation of the psychological types.

The intertype relations, quadra values, romance styles, club values, and temparments are all revolutionary compared to what MBTI has spawned (Kiersey, etc. )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
I voted socionics but I'm interested in both theories.

MBTI is the more accessible and straightforward of the two.

Socionics is more nuanced and I like it because it really gets at the heart of how you interact with other types and why you find some relations pleasant and others uncomfortable and explains that in terms of functions and their positions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,117 Posts
I prefer MBTI as I then don't have to find out what Socionics is.:tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,961 Posts
They are really same system, but Socionics goes into more theory. It goes over relations between types and subtypes of types and that kind of stuff. It complements MBTI very nicely since MBTI doesn't go that much in depth. More info on socionics here: A forum about Socionics
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
I prefer MBTI, as it and Enneagram theory explain most aspects of personality. Socionics just seems really confusing, so i don't want to look into it. Plus, if MBTI and Enneagram together help me a lot, why confuse myself further with another theory?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
About even. I’m the same function type in both (Ni-Fe), but the functions are different.
There’s ongoing debate about whether the JCF and socionics functions are in essence the same or not (and if not, it would mean we have sixteen instead of eight cognitive functions), but there’s no question many people type themselves differently in each system.

The MBTI is sometimes considered inferior because it lacks a fully developed relationship model. But imo the socionics relationship model (ie, the quadras and duality) overreaches; it’s constructed on principles that are inappropriately a priori and it’s far from infallible—as is any type pairing formula for relationships, of which there are simply too many variations for a typology system to absorb.

The VI method for typing that many socionics freaks swear by is also unreliable and almost comparable to police profiling if you think about it: the unpalatable notion that physical appearance and/or expression reflect character (or lack thereof), personality and ulterior motives. Both VI and the dual relationship model are applied in some of the socionics celebrity types galleries I’ve browsed, where some of the typings are downright preposterous.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,338 Posts
i study socionics extensively and pay almost no attention to MBTI or JCF or related derivatives. i am not at all interested in MBTI for reasons that are far too extensive to summarize cleanly. i think my preference is experientially motivated and derives initially from my inability to satisfy myself in classifying myself in MBTI, and my dissatisfaction with and inability to interpret the mishmash of language features commonly presented as MBTI extended to other areas quickly. partly as a consequence i have been studying the particular language features of socionics and i find it extremely difficult to interpret the hypotheses and archetypes of MBTI as a result; when discernible images emerge from these archetypes (including those that don't always fit nicely in socionics, like the MBTI ISTP) i am inclined to see them as "flawed" -- even if that is not what they are.

essentially i am operating that from the implicit hypothesis that the MBTI language features are flawed with respect to empirically observable interactions; no doubt the socionics language features are flawed too but in my implicit assumptions they are sort of "less" flawed. though i think this idea colors my thinking, i am simultaneously skeptical of it because in a fundamental way i do see the two theories as slightly concordant but simply different languages, descended from the same family.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
Socionics is much better, more accurate and more complex, it could even be considered revolutionary with the quadras, relationships. It's just that MBTI gets basically all the attention in the west. Tons of books, websites etc. in English. There's lots of litterature on socionics but mostly in Russian. When googling for socionics is easy to get suspicious because some websites made by enthusiasts are not so good.

Socionics is also harder to learn and it requires more real-life experience, for example in order to really understand what the relationships are about.

The MBTI is sometimes considered inferior because it lacks a fully developed relationship model. But imo the socionics relationship model (ie, the quadras and duality) overreaches; it’s constructed on principles that are inappropriately a priori and it’s far from infallible—as is any type pairing formula for relationships, of which there are simply too many variations for a typology system to absorb.
Socionics doesn't deny that it deals with type relations, and that there are more factors to consider in real life. But information metabolism dynamics is still very important in how we connect and get along with people.

Duality and quadras are actually empirically based. It was this discovery (correlation between compatibility and type combination) that led to the development of socionics.

I've seen too many examples of duality between people, and experienced it myself. It would be ridiculous to dismiss it as an abstract construction. It's a phenomenon and can be experienced by anyone.

The VI method for typing that many socionics freaks swear by is also unreliable and almost comparable to police profiling if you think about it: the unpalatable notion that physical appearance and/or expression reflect character (or lack thereof), personality and ulterior motives. Both VI and the dual relationship model are applied in some of the socionics celebrity types galleries I’ve browsed, where some of the typings are downright preposterous.
There is no need to hold VI against socionics, it's not a part of the theory. Like with any model or theory, people are coming up with different ideas on how to connect it to other things according to their experiences. Some agree others don't, but not liking VI is not an argument against socionics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
Looks very confusing to me but I will have to look into Socionics as well. I really like MBTI have very little knowledge of the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
MBTI here.... i like socionics for the detailed type interaction part only
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
760 Posts
MBTI...
But, I prefer both...
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top