So, a few years ago I came across something called
Socionics. It's similar to MBTI (I think they're both based off the work of Jung), but different and not exactly compatible, even though personality types have similar names. (It's my understanding that it's pretty compatible regarding Extraverted personalities, but incompatible with Introverted types.)
(Example: In MBTI, I'm most definitely an INTJ. Yet in Socionics, I'm uncertain as to whether I'm an INTj (LII) or INTp (ILI). I think I lean more toward INTp/ILI, though.)
What I find particularly fascinating about Socionics is
Intertype Relationships--which is essentially how people of each type interact with people of each type.
I'm not sure I completely subscribe to the idea of Socionics, especially the part about duals and the organization of Model A Functions, but I still find it really interesting.
The whole Socionics theory is really complex and in depth. I'm still not sure I really understand it all. (It doesn't help that they use shapes as symbols for the names of functions.) But some of the stuff is scary accurate.
Here's a
Socionics Test.
My results: ILI (INTp).Funny how there's a 97% chance I'm LII (INTj). The
in-depth link about ILIs is pretty spooky how accurate it is, though. Except for the Super-ego block; that only seems about half-right. Which is interesting, because I think that's the area where MBTI differs from Socionics.
If I'm an ILI, I'm definitely the Philosopher subtype (strong Introverted Intuition).
Ugh, there's really no good
link to it; you have to hunt for it and scroll way down the page, so I'll just paste the description:
PHILOSOPHER (Ni-INTp)
The intuitive subtype seems to be a quiet, counterbalanced, even sluggish person. Their movements are smooth and slow. They’re internally timid but they attempt to hide this under a mask of irony. Are tactful, polite, and scrupulous. Tries to avoid straightforwardness and criticisms in their conversations; are affable and kind but seldom smile. Despite their attempts to hide weakness they are, nonetheless, internally rather sensitive, inconsistent and vulnerable; thus they often find themselves suppressed and dissatisfied, and from this stems negative moods and emotions. Their moods may further be afflicted due to the state of their health; they rarely discuss such problems with anyone. They keep people, psychologically, at a distance. Like to talk and tell things to people, meanwhile they possess good figurative thinking for they read/reflect much. Gait and movements are smooth, barely ever shaken.
More stuff: Apparently there are "portraits" of each type for both male and female. Physical traits, behaviors, and attitudes, mostly.
Mine was pretty accurate too. I found this part to be particularly amusing:
Small children, around whom adults usually act like they are moved by their cuteness, don't appeal much to female ILIs - the senselessness of an infant who has to be breast-fed and the need to manifest emotions seems repulsive to them. They like it much more when children grow up a little, and they can talk with them, supply them with important information, discuss interesting problems, and teach them life.
Heheheheh. I love kids--heck, I work with kids--but babies and toddlers repulse me. Well, toddlers are borderline, but babies, absolute yuck. Age 3.5+ plz. (Uh oh, I predict a Suffix rebuttal...)
...Anyway.
If you guys take the test, it'd be interesting to check out the Intertype Relationships and see how it compares to everyone's actual interactions with each other.
Show Posts
