There's a big problem with what I wrote back in 2011, so let me clear something up:
If you're caught between Socionics and MBTI and are wondering which is "right," stop. Both are simply models, drawing binary boundaries to more easily organize one's understanding of the wide spectrum of human variability. People who are somewhere in the middle may be categorized in very different ways depending on which aspect each theory considers to be central.
With that out of the way, I have some criticisms of both theories I'd like to add.
MBTI: I still see Judging/Perceiving as unrelated to cognitive functions, although I think calling it "false" is a bit misleading. By itself, Judging/Perceiving is arguably a better metric of human differences than is rationality/irrationality. The issue is that Myers-Briggs introversion/extroversion is more related to a person's cortical arousal than to the Jungian cognitive function-attitude, leaving the MBTI function-attitude to be defined by the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy.
For example, Jung defined Te as thinking which primarily references external sources, while Ti works in a circumambulatory way, as a person's reaction to information. But in MBTI, Te is defined as organizing things in the external world while Ti in is defined in terms of making sense of a body of information. The original meaning was discarded in favor of the dichotomies, as measured by the test.
This change isn't a bad thing -- it's easier to discern what type a person is because of this -- but it's less clear why these would be fundamental psychic functions. Rather, it seems to describe basic skillsets a person with a given focus and temperament tends to have. Not surprisingly, MBTI is popular in career prediction, in a way that Socionics (or Enneagram for that matter) isn't.
Socionics: Perhaps because the Socionics rationality/irrationality is less immediately salient than the MBTI Judging/Perceiving attitude, I find there's usually much less agreement among Socionists about what type a person is than in MBTI. It's often argued that this is because Socionics goes deeper and is more faithful to Jungian theory than MBTI, but I'm not so sure about that. The introduction of information metabolism makes Socionics's "information elements" also rather different from Jung's cognitive functions. Rather than describing a purely psychic orientation, the information elements describe specific domains of interest, with each type being defined by how they relate to these domains.
Socionics is meant to describe relationships, and, in my experience, it can predict how two people will relate, although it also seems this will drift, quite commonly, when someone experiences a major change in their life. For example, a person who seeks prompts for action (Se) can shift to being unwelcoming of such once their life path becomes more clear. One who likes fun environments where people don't have to watch too much what anyone says (Fe) may be turned off when their personal experiences cause their values to diverge from their culture's values.
For this reason, I generally recommend people try not to force a person into a given type for a while, instead observing their reaction to the elements individually. Socionics makes a lot of predictions about what traits a person of a given type will have, and these traits change in a sharply categorical fashion when changing only one dichotomy. The difference between an INFP and an INFJ is much smaller than between an EII and IEI, causing the move from observation to type to have much bigger implications when there's an error. On the other hand, there's also more alternative dichotomies to consider that can reveal surprising aspects of personality one otherwise might not consider.
Overall, my opinion is that MBTI is more reliable if you want to use it for casual discussion. It's more immediately obvious what's being referred to, and it lends itself better to being taken in an impressionistic way. Once you start focusing on the cognitive functions though, it becomes increasingly more problematic. There was one theorist under the pen-name of "simulatedworld" who tried writing MBTI descriptions in a Socionics-fashion -- I got the impression reading them that the judging/perceiving aspect did not follow from the rest of his descriptions, especially when describing the differences between INFJ and INFP. They also invoked a motivational component which I feel, while often-to-sometimes is associated with each type, didn't really follow from his otherwise thorough, categorical approach. But his descriptions are easily searchable online to draw your own conclusions.
In contrast, Socionics requires a lot more time to be handled and discussed properly, and impressionistic descriptions (such as on socionics.com) tend to be quite misleading. Some major surface traits, e.g. Conscientiousness from Big5 or Judging/Perceiving from MBTI, aren't directly covered, so it can appear at first to be less descriptive. Once you dig into it though, it can explain a great deal more about a person's nature, especially when meshed with other depth typologies like the Enneagram of Personality, as one is already putting in a great deal of time to tease out the underlying mechanisms. In this way, you can start answering questions such as why a person has a controlling or laid-back attitude, making it more clear how to avoid (or not) people's trigger points and so on.
While the way I think about people is something like a combination of Socionics and Enneagram, I rarely draw conclusions about what type a person is unless I plan on discussing it, in which case I find it much easier to describe them in MBTI terms. For the most part, I kinda see Socionics as overkill, although in the several years I studied type personally I got a lot more out of studying Socionics than I did MBTI.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Beyond Personality Theories
One of the biggest problems I've run into while studying personality theories is that I can't easily share what I'm seeing with people who don't know the theories I'm talking about. I mean, honestly, how many people in the world know what "extraverted logic" means? It gets even worse when I want to talk about a personality type. Acronyms like 'SEI' or 'Type 4' are complete nonsense to most of the free world.
But no one ever said that there were rules against using normal words to describe people. Bubbly. Curious. Analytical. Vindicative. Complacent. I may not be able to share my knowledge exactly, but then again since when was anyone able to take any sort of complex understanding and give it over to someone else? That's totally unrealistic, and very often unnecessary. Your understanding develops as you develop, and sometimes it takes an entirely different view of the world for someone to accept a single fact.
I see theories as stepping stones in the development of your own understanding. People are complex, and sometimes it takes seeing a few different perspectives to really get a good idea of where people are coming from. But people are also dynamic, and if we cling too tightly to our beliefs we won't even be able to see what is happening right before our eyes.
From this point on I won't be talking about personality theories. That was never my intent in the first place. I only included an analysis of personality theories so that people would have something to turn to for a more comprehensive understanding of personality. Rather, this blog is geared towards what we can see if we see the world through the lens of personality.
But no one ever said that there were rules against using normal words to describe people. Bubbly. Curious. Analytical. Vindicative. Complacent. I may not be able to share my knowledge exactly, but then again since when was anyone able to take any sort of complex understanding and give it over to someone else? That's totally unrealistic, and very often unnecessary. Your understanding develops as you develop, and sometimes it takes an entirely different view of the world for someone to accept a single fact.
I see theories as stepping stones in the development of your own understanding. People are complex, and sometimes it takes seeing a few different perspectives to really get a good idea of where people are coming from. But people are also dynamic, and if we cling too tightly to our beliefs we won't even be able to see what is happening right before our eyes.
From this point on I won't be talking about personality theories. That was never my intent in the first place. I only included an analysis of personality theories so that people would have something to turn to for a more comprehensive understanding of personality. Rather, this blog is geared towards what we can see if we see the world through the lens of personality.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
The Enneagram
People who are familiar with Socionics or MBTI and come to the Enneagram are often surprised at how much more Enneagram type descriptions describe them. That's because it takes an entirely different approach and looks into your emotional life. Some are turned off by the 'new-agey' feel of the Enneagram, but such people usually aren't interested in what the Enneagram covers.
It's pretty easy to find information on the Enneagram of Personality, so it's pointless for me to elaborate on the theory here.
If you want more structure, go buy a book. My personal favorite is the Wisdom of the Enneagram. If you get it, be sure to read about the Triadic Self. That explains why there are exactly 9 types, and why they are arranged as they are on the Enneagram figure.
It's pretty easy to find information on the Enneagram of Personality, so it's pointless for me to elaborate on the theory here.
- Recommended sources:
If you want more structure, go buy a book. My personal favorite is the Wisdom of the Enneagram. If you get it, be sure to read about the Triadic Self. That explains why there are exactly 9 types, and why they are arranged as they are on the Enneagram figure.
Socionics vs MBTI: whose interpretation is right?
Update: see Socionics vs MBTI revisited for my revised addressal of this issue.
One of the biggest differences between Socionics and MBTI is the infamous J/P swap. In the process of developing the MBTI, Myers changed one of the four Jungian dichotomies, making translation from Socionics over to MBTI difficult. While there are other important differences between the two theories, many type enthusiasts want to know which Jungian functional breakdown fits with which type. In short, is Myers's interpretation right?
Well, if you look closely, you'll notice that it is Myers who disagreed with Jung, not anyone on the Socionics side. So if we assume that Jung was right, then Socionics is more accurate than MBTI. The question then is, do we have reason to believe that Jung was wrong? I see no reason why Isabel Myers would have the experience to overturn Jung's insights. I would trust a man who spent his entire life studying people as a psychotherapist over a newly-minted PhD. But the only real way to know is to see how it plays out in reality.
From my experience of helping others with MBTI, I am convinced that Socionics matches the Jungian functions better. Introverts have to learn to be more objective to communicate with others, but they always prefer (by definition) their subjective orientation. This is what wears introverts out: they have to change their thought process to be understood by others. In my experience, Judging/Perceiving (the dichotomy that Myers created) is dependent more on your values and goals than on your personality, and people who consistently lean to one side tend to have very expressed ego fixations.
The problem with MBTI isn't that the dichotomies are wrong, it's that the dichotomies don't get at the core of human nature. I admit it's very close, and MBTI type tends to remain stable, but it does change. MBTI is still a great tool, probably the best for getting a quick read of a person's strengths and weaknesses, but it doesn't get at the core of a person's personality. This is why many versions of the theory tout a 'best fit' type. Not everyone is described exactly by just one type, but most will relate to one or two types the most. The value of MBTI is in its simplicity, not its accuracy.
If you're wondering how so many people could be attracted to MBTI when it has gotten the functions wrong, take a moment to consider how the two theories could be reconciled. The biggest issue is the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy. Consider how you are Judging, and how you are Perceiving. Many people could save a lot of time on worrying about their type if they considered themselves to be a 'Judging' person with an INFP functional breakdown or a 'Perceiving' person with an INFJ breakdown. Don't fit one type? Simple: combine two profiles. MBTI is not that accurate.
People who are interested in knowing the truth, and seriously consider both systems, pick Socionics over MBTI. I know many people who started with MBTI, then switched to Socionics. I'm still looking for people who started with Socionics, then switched to MBTI: I'd be curious to know why. I spent a year studying type using MBTI before discovering Socionics, and the connection between Jungian functions and type made much more sense when I started studying Socionics.
However, the more accurate the types get, the more categorical and mathematical they become. People are dynamic, and the underlying principles of their personality are pretty difficult to see. It gets even worse when you get into the Falsification of Type. The fact of the matter is that the MBTI makes what is very complex seem pretty straightforward. But the moment you take type descriptions to be about a particular category of people, and not just how some people are sometimes, you'll be lead into misconceptions about how people really are.
If you're still not convinced that Myers's interpretation is off, study Jungian theory and test it out yourself.
One of the biggest differences between Socionics and MBTI is the infamous J/P swap. In the process of developing the MBTI, Myers changed one of the four Jungian dichotomies, making translation from Socionics over to MBTI difficult. While there are other important differences between the two theories, many type enthusiasts want to know which Jungian functional breakdown fits with which type. In short, is Myers's interpretation right?
Well, if you look closely, you'll notice that it is Myers who disagreed with Jung, not anyone on the Socionics side. So if we assume that Jung was right, then Socionics is more accurate than MBTI. The question then is, do we have reason to believe that Jung was wrong? I see no reason why Isabel Myers would have the experience to overturn Jung's insights. I would trust a man who spent his entire life studying people as a psychotherapist over a newly-minted PhD. But the only real way to know is to see how it plays out in reality.
From my experience of helping others with MBTI, I am convinced that Socionics matches the Jungian functions better. Introverts have to learn to be more objective to communicate with others, but they always prefer (by definition) their subjective orientation. This is what wears introverts out: they have to change their thought process to be understood by others. In my experience, Judging/Perceiving (the dichotomy that Myers created) is dependent more on your values and goals than on your personality, and people who consistently lean to one side tend to have very expressed ego fixations.
The problem with MBTI isn't that the dichotomies are wrong, it's that the dichotomies don't get at the core of human nature. I admit it's very close, and MBTI type tends to remain stable, but it does change. MBTI is still a great tool, probably the best for getting a quick read of a person's strengths and weaknesses, but it doesn't get at the core of a person's personality. This is why many versions of the theory tout a 'best fit' type. Not everyone is described exactly by just one type, but most will relate to one or two types the most. The value of MBTI is in its simplicity, not its accuracy.
If you're wondering how so many people could be attracted to MBTI when it has gotten the functions wrong, take a moment to consider how the two theories could be reconciled. The biggest issue is the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy. Consider how you are Judging, and how you are Perceiving. Many people could save a lot of time on worrying about their type if they considered themselves to be a 'Judging' person with an INFP functional breakdown or a 'Perceiving' person with an INFJ breakdown. Don't fit one type? Simple: combine two profiles. MBTI is not that accurate.
People who are interested in knowing the truth, and seriously consider both systems, pick Socionics over MBTI. I know many people who started with MBTI, then switched to Socionics. I'm still looking for people who started with Socionics, then switched to MBTI: I'd be curious to know why. I spent a year studying type using MBTI before discovering Socionics, and the connection between Jungian functions and type made much more sense when I started studying Socionics.
However, the more accurate the types get, the more categorical and mathematical they become. People are dynamic, and the underlying principles of their personality are pretty difficult to see. It gets even worse when you get into the Falsification of Type. The fact of the matter is that the MBTI makes what is very complex seem pretty straightforward. But the moment you take type descriptions to be about a particular category of people, and not just how some people are sometimes, you'll be lead into misconceptions about how people really are.
If you're still not convinced that Myers's interpretation is off, study Jungian theory and test it out yourself.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Socionics
Socionics is a living, breathing theory with lots of support behind it.
Most people just haven't heard about it because it's based in Russia.
Here are my recommended sources:
I'd recommend just jumping in and finding a method that works for you, but if you want more structure, take this step-by-step guide:
You'll also want to get a sense of the other types as early as possible. The goal isn't to categorize people; it's to understand them better. All you are doing at this point is putting words and categories to what you already believe. Eventually you will understand how people really are underneath, but for now you are simply putting words to your intuitions.
Verifying your typing skills works best when interacting with people, but if you don't have the time to socialize a lot, don't despair. You can type people while watching movies or online videos; however, be careful with typing actors and celebrities. Many celebrities go to great lengths to present a particular image to the world; after all, they are the best of the best at faking it. Either way you choose, it's important to learn Socionics through experience. Words and descriptions are too open to interpretation.
If you notice some trends that seem unrelated to Socionics, that's good. There are many trends in human behavior not due to sociotype, such as cultural differences, music tastes, and values. For the most part these are not type related. However, it's important to notice what is and what isn't related to type, especially when it comes to understanding why people don't get along even when sociotypes are compatible.
Once you've come this far, it's helpful to compare notes with other people. You'll notice that people disagree about who is what type. This is natural and shouldn't bother you. The important thing is that you have a useful framework for thinking about personality. I encourage you to compare your perspective with others so you can see why people think differently from you, not so you can argue about who is right or wrong.
Also, people of the Socionics communities are under no obligation to help you out, so please be courteous and patient when you ask for help.
The final stage is to watch how different sociotypes get along with each other. It's all based on how people give and receive different types of information. However, for most people, thinking in terms of information metabolism is way too analytical. You may want to try a more intuitive approach. Once you've gained enough experience typing people, you're intuitions will become accurate enough to rely on, and one of the ways this manifests is in visual identification. Still, be skeptical until you have a good track record of people reading. It takes while for that to happen, but once it does you'll be able to get an accurate read of a person without having to think about information metabolism at all.
The trick of Socionics is in showing you what to look for. It can be hard to understand people when everyone seems so unique, but that's just because everyone has a unique life history. There are 16 distinct sociotypes, independent of cultural influences. You can't really know everything about each sociotype just by reading about them, but, if you follow these directions, soon enough you'll know an ILE when you see one.
Most people just haven't heard about it because it's based in Russia.
Here are my recommended sources:
I'd recommend just jumping in and finding a method that works for you, but if you want more structure, take this step-by-step guide:
- Step I: get clear on what you already believe about people
- take a Socionics type test
- read about your sociotype
- read about others' sociotypes
- reflect on what type the people you know might be
You'll also want to get a sense of the other types as early as possible. The goal isn't to categorize people; it's to understand them better. All you are doing at this point is putting words and categories to what you already believe. Eventually you will understand how people really are underneath, but for now you are simply putting words to your intuitions.
- Step II: get a reality check
- type people by Club and Temperament
- predict how they will behave
- if your predictions are off, read more about sociotypes
- note the patterns and trends you experience
Verifying your typing skills works best when interacting with people, but if you don't have the time to socialize a lot, don't despair. You can type people while watching movies or online videos; however, be careful with typing actors and celebrities. Many celebrities go to great lengths to present a particular image to the world; after all, they are the best of the best at faking it. Either way you choose, it's important to learn Socionics through experience. Words and descriptions are too open to interpretation.
If you notice some trends that seem unrelated to Socionics, that's good. There are many trends in human behavior not due to sociotype, such as cultural differences, music tastes, and values. For the most part these are not type related. However, it's important to notice what is and what isn't related to type, especially when it comes to understanding why people don't get along even when sociotypes are compatible.
- Step III: learn group dynamics
- replace Clubs with Quadras in your typing arsenal
- notice how your group interactions flow
- come up with your own experience-based interpretation
- compare notes with other users
Once you've come this far, it's helpful to compare notes with other people. You'll notice that people disagree about who is what type. This is natural and shouldn't bother you. The important thing is that you have a useful framework for thinking about personality. I encourage you to compare your perspective with others so you can see why people think differently from you, not so you can argue about who is right or wrong.
Also, people of the Socionics communities are under no obligation to help you out, so please be courteous and patient when you ask for help.
- Step IV: fill in the details on interpersonal dynamics
- read about functions and information elements
- reconsider your sociotype
- predict the dynamics of intertype relationships
- consider incorporating visual identification
The final stage is to watch how different sociotypes get along with each other. It's all based on how people give and receive different types of information. However, for most people, thinking in terms of information metabolism is way too analytical. You may want to try a more intuitive approach. Once you've gained enough experience typing people, you're intuitions will become accurate enough to rely on, and one of the ways this manifests is in visual identification. Still, be skeptical until you have a good track record of people reading. It takes while for that to happen, but once it does you'll be able to get an accurate read of a person without having to think about information metabolism at all.
The trick of Socionics is in showing you what to look for. It can be hard to understand people when everyone seems so unique, but that's just because everyone has a unique life history. There are 16 distinct sociotypes, independent of cultural influences. You can't really know everything about each sociotype just by reading about them, but, if you follow these directions, soon enough you'll know an ILE when you see one.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Why I recommend Socionics over MBTI (for typing)
Quite honestly, I think you can't go wrong with either of these theories if you use them right. In fact, if you can resist the urge to categorize and classify people, I'd recommend reading a bit of both. But I know that won't happen, so for typing purposes, I have to say that Socionics is better.
The most obvious reason is that Socionics is more accurate than MBTI. In short, while MBTI has its merits, it misinterprets the theory it claims to be based on. In the absence of any other control, it should at least get that right.
The other reasons stem from the fact that Socionics is focused on intertype relations. Because type depends on how people get along with one another, you are encouraged to test it out for yourself. Misunderstandings about how the theory works tend to go away when you're out testing the truth of the theory. But at the same time, you are also encouraged to introspect about how you relate to each of the types as well. Being a cognitive theory, MBTI is much more difficult to test. Quite simply, Socionics puts you into a more effective mindset.
I have studied several versions of MBTI-type theories, including Keirsey's Temperaments, Linda Berens' Interaction Styles, and PersonalityNation's JCF, and I still think Socionics is the most effective Jungian-based tool out there. However, if you do study MBTI, I'd strongly encourage you to consider the dichotomies as separate from the Jungian functions. You can learn a lot about reading MBTI personality descriptions, especially ones that describe type from the inside, but the more you take it as 'absolute truth' and dig into the matching cognitive functions, the more it falls apart.
There are a few problems with Socionics, but they have to do more with the availability of information and the multitude of poor connections rather than the theory itself. The main problem with studying Socionics over MBTI is that there's a whole lot of information about MBTI, yet there's very little about Socionics that has been translated from Russian. You have to think much more critically about the information that you read too, as a lot of the information is misleading until you've started observing the theory play out in reality. But as long as you stick to the basic idea of information metabolism (which you'll learn about in any good description of Socionics), you'll be fine. I can't recommend any books, and I would urge people to stay away from sources like socionics.com, which describes type in terms of physical traits. There is a grain of truth to visual identification, but you can't really tell the good information from the bad until you have been applying the basics for a while.
Despite its wide-reaching appeal, I really see no reason to recommend MBTI to anyone. If you want job recommendations, you are better off taking a combined career profiler as a starting point (and then taking action). If you want free job recommendations, the Holland Codes are more suited for the job. If you need a self-discovery tool, the Enneagram is far more appropriate. And for pretty much anything else, you are better off using Socionics.
Honestly, I don't really recommend you type people at all. I think people are better off considering everyone individually, taking time to understand how people really are rather than turn to a categorical approach. But it's not practical to think that everyone will take that route, or even be able to. So if you're going to take a categorical approach, go all the way and use Socionics.
Don't know where to start? Start here.
The most obvious reason is that Socionics is more accurate than MBTI. In short, while MBTI has its merits, it misinterprets the theory it claims to be based on. In the absence of any other control, it should at least get that right.
The other reasons stem from the fact that Socionics is focused on intertype relations. Because type depends on how people get along with one another, you are encouraged to test it out for yourself. Misunderstandings about how the theory works tend to go away when you're out testing the truth of the theory. But at the same time, you are also encouraged to introspect about how you relate to each of the types as well. Being a cognitive theory, MBTI is much more difficult to test. Quite simply, Socionics puts you into a more effective mindset.
I have studied several versions of MBTI-type theories, including Keirsey's Temperaments, Linda Berens' Interaction Styles, and PersonalityNation's JCF, and I still think Socionics is the most effective Jungian-based tool out there. However, if you do study MBTI, I'd strongly encourage you to consider the dichotomies as separate from the Jungian functions. You can learn a lot about reading MBTI personality descriptions, especially ones that describe type from the inside, but the more you take it as 'absolute truth' and dig into the matching cognitive functions, the more it falls apart.
There are a few problems with Socionics, but they have to do more with the availability of information and the multitude of poor connections rather than the theory itself. The main problem with studying Socionics over MBTI is that there's a whole lot of information about MBTI, yet there's very little about Socionics that has been translated from Russian. You have to think much more critically about the information that you read too, as a lot of the information is misleading until you've started observing the theory play out in reality. But as long as you stick to the basic idea of information metabolism (which you'll learn about in any good description of Socionics), you'll be fine. I can't recommend any books, and I would urge people to stay away from sources like socionics.com, which describes type in terms of physical traits. There is a grain of truth to visual identification, but you can't really tell the good information from the bad until you have been applying the basics for a while.
Despite its wide-reaching appeal, I really see no reason to recommend MBTI to anyone. If you want job recommendations, you are better off taking a combined career profiler as a starting point (and then taking action). If you want free job recommendations, the Holland Codes are more suited for the job. If you need a self-discovery tool, the Enneagram is far more appropriate. And for pretty much anything else, you are better off using Socionics.
Honestly, I don't really recommend you type people at all. I think people are better off considering everyone individually, taking time to understand how people really are rather than turn to a categorical approach. But it's not practical to think that everyone will take that route, or even be able to. So if you're going to take a categorical approach, go all the way and use Socionics.
Don't know where to start? Start here.
Contrasting Personality Theories
Every theory has a different purpose in mind, and whether one theory is better depends on what you want to use it for. So choosing a personality theory to use is more a matter of personal preference than anything else.
There are three major theories descending from the work of Carl Jung:
Socionics is often touted as the theory of human interaction, but all of the theories have some interesting things to say about how people will get along. What's unique about Socionics is that it takes the perspective of people being the givers and receivers of information. Everything in Socionics is in terms of people's relationship to each type of information.
All three of these theories are based on pretty solid footing, and science is catching up to support that. Dr. Katherine Benziger has amassed some very interesting findings that support Jung's theory. Not only are different areas of the brain correlated with the different Jungian functions, but also one's dominant brain area is 100 times more efficient than the other parts of the brain. The details of each theory are still in question, and probably will be for a very long time.
In addition, we also have the Enneagram:
I include the Enneagram because it is the most comprehensive theory I've found that doesn't resemble Jungian types, and it provides a nice contrast to them. Jungian theories are focused on how we think and act. They're very logical and structured. The Enneagram, on the other hand, is focused on our motivations and emotional reactions. It's more open and spiritual. Jungian theories are about how we were born; the Enneagram is about how we developed. Jungian descriptions focus on mental landscapes; the Enneagram focuses on emotional landscapes. Each complements the other quite nicely.
It's become common practice in most Enneagram, Socionics, and MBTI communities to combine the Enneagram with a Jungian based theory. But if you're not a typology nut, it's probably best to just pick one theory, read about it, and move on.
There are three major theories descending from the work of Carl Jung:
- MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)
- developed directly from Jung's work
- focuses on perception and decision-making
- most accessible (due to its popularity); cognitive
- best for discovering how people see the world
- KTS (Keirsey Temperament Sorter)
- incorporates temperament theory
- focuses on actions, strengths, interests, values, etc.
- most straightforward; behavioral
- best for discovering general trends in temperament
- Socionics
- incorporates information metabolism
- focuses on how people react to types of information
- most accurate; mathematical
- best for discovering underlying principles of personality
Socionics is often touted as the theory of human interaction, but all of the theories have some interesting things to say about how people will get along. What's unique about Socionics is that it takes the perspective of people being the givers and receivers of information. Everything in Socionics is in terms of people's relationship to each type of information.
All three of these theories are based on pretty solid footing, and science is catching up to support that. Dr. Katherine Benziger has amassed some very interesting findings that support Jung's theory. Not only are different areas of the brain correlated with the different Jungian functions, but also one's dominant brain area is 100 times more efficient than the other parts of the brain. The details of each theory are still in question, and probably will be for a very long time.
In addition, we also have the Enneagram:
- Enneagram of Personality
- developed from spiritual teachings of George Gurdjieff
- focuses on internal imbalances and ego fixations
- tool for self-discovery and personal development
- best for understanding people's inner problems
I include the Enneagram because it is the most comprehensive theory I've found that doesn't resemble Jungian types, and it provides a nice contrast to them. Jungian theories are focused on how we think and act. They're very logical and structured. The Enneagram, on the other hand, is focused on our motivations and emotional reactions. It's more open and spiritual. Jungian theories are about how we were born; the Enneagram is about how we developed. Jungian descriptions focus on mental landscapes; the Enneagram focuses on emotional landscapes. Each complements the other quite nicely.
It's become common practice in most Enneagram, Socionics, and MBTI communities to combine the Enneagram with a Jungian based theory. But if you're not a typology nut, it's probably best to just pick one theory, read about it, and move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)