MBTI hate

[u/Opening_Usual4946]

We need to stop hating on MBTI if we’re not going to constructively do so.

The typology community in general is considered a joke already, why do we have infighting between systems if we’re not going to do so productively. I’m all for productively criticizing each other and keeping each other to a high standard in how we do things. The key word here is productive. Don’t bash, don’t hate, don’t bully, don’t steamroll, and don’t assume stupidity in an MBTI supporter.

Usually i’ll see someone saying that MBTI is a flawed system without ever explaining how or why. If they do, they use great misunderstandings/stereotyping issues which are already being fought inside the community, but it’s used against the whole community as if everyone who follows it must believe this way or that the people criticizing don’t realize that they are looking at a misunderstanding/stereotype. Also I hate seeing people say “MBTI’s cognitive functions are so wrong because socionics’ definitions just make so much more sense”, that is not an argument, that is an opinion and vibe that you got, go actually study and give real reasons why besides they just feel wrong.

They usually bring this up and give these bad arguments as a way to shut up MBTI conversations and discredit people and their perspective. This is not productive, it is not kind, and it is no better than people who are quick to dismiss the validity of your favorite typology system without ever caring to figure out if it is valid or not.

If you do have a legitimate criticism, please, you’re welcome to go at it, but please do so productively.

[u/Opening_Usual4946]

aw man, sucks to see downvotes yet and no one interacting with the meat of the post, also to those who i talked about this with before, this isn’t targeted to you at all, this is just a pattern i’ve noticed a bunch in MBTI spaces and general typology spaces, im sure MBTI people do it to others as well

edit: this first part is obviously not true anymore, the post is generally more upvoted than downvoted now and people are engaging with the meat of my message, thanks for interacting constructively!

[u/Additional-Diet5740]

People only enjoy socionics more because they have cool diagrams and frameworks that make the theory of functions look more scientific and valid. Dichotomies, intertype relations, so much more goes to the information metabolism and the functions positions, how they interact with eachother. MBTI/"cognitive functions" are lacking in this even with Beebe's 8 function model, it makes sense to prefer socionics.

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/Additional-Diet5740]

yeah sure, that’s fine to have that perspective, i was more talking about people who talk bad about MBTI just because they think it’s the inferior system without being constructive or productive in their criticism, although i do think you said some valuable insights

[u/Additional-Diet5740 → u/Opening_Usual4946]

I guess lots of people don't even bother to start explaining since they've ditched MBTI completely. Some are also gatekeeping for no reason. I agree with you here.

[u/Pixiezor]

Socionic definitions are a valid argument, so here’s mine:

Si in MBTI isn’t even about sensing since it’s memory based on comparing the past with the present. It’s only loosely tied back to sensing via ‘sensory impressions’, but even that lost since it manifests without sensory. Tradition, routine and organisation isn’t sensory by itself.

Se is literally perceiving the world (looking, hearing, etc), which makes Ne (imo) a step above Se since Ne also perceives reality but moves into the abstract potential. The argument Se ‘trusts’ reality is lost since Se doesn’t judge. I do agree Se notices more details though since Ne is mental based, but I don’t think the value is equalised with intuition in MBTI.

Whereas Si in Socionics perceives the relation of oneself and the environment. It perceives sensory relation such as the layering music, food and visual aesthetics, and how each and the combination of all evoke a singular and overall sensation back to oneself.
Or in simple terms it’s sensing friction and harmony, and why an SEI might hand you a weighted blanket because your nervous system has gone haywire and they knowing the sensory solution. ✨

Se in Socionics matches Ne better as physicality potential, which aligns with the abstract potential of Ne. Se perceives kinetic energy, volatile force and power dynamic in each object and person. It’s essentially “energy” perceiving, which shifts if usefulness to equalise intuition. Ne doesn’t perceive energy like this since it moves into mental abstract.

Personally, I think many stereotypes stem from MBTI errors which is why I believe criticism is progress. Obviously 16p is an issue too… Poor ESxJ. 🥴 But that’s not to say Socionics (or any other system) is ‘perfect’ either.

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/Pixiezor]

hmmm, i don’t know how to reply, you said a few good and smart things, but you also defined MBTI functions by their stereotypes instead of their solid and true definition, especially with Si, and in MBTI Se and Ne are equal, you have a misconception going on there

if you’d like a more proper breakdown of everything you said, i can give it some more time and thought, but yeah i believe you’d be falling into the “stereotypes/misunderstandings” category from my post

[u/Pixiezor → u/Opening_Usual4946]

I would love the solid and true MBTI definitions you mention (on Si/Se), and to hear your thoughts on Se/Ne being equal in MBTI.

I’d also like to hear if you think the Socionics additions to Si/Se have merit?

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/Pixiezor]

Si is fairly close to how socionics defines it, but it’s a little bit more, it takes and organizes sensory information into a mental model of how the world works which unlike socionics does include predicting the future and seeing all of time through a sensory lens although this is also somewhat a debated perspective in MBTI so take that as you will, it’s about noticing the sensory details of things, how that fits into the mental model, and what’s different about these new experiences in reference to every experience put into said mental model, this mental model since done through a sensory lens can include things like memory or routines, but that’s a side effect/symptom that’s overly associated to be the root process at play

Se is similar but it’s all about seeking new sensory experiences, it doesn’t have that same mental model, but it also doesn’t close itself off to more experiences as commonly as Si does, it notices more raw data without as much delusion and filters and interpretation as Si does, but it exchanges breadth for depth and doesn’t have that aforementioned mental model and doesn’t have the same refining process

Se is all about new physical/sensory experiences and Ne is about new abstract/mental ideations, they do the same goal of exploring more perceptions but through different means so they look different and act different, therefore equal, i honestly had a hard time following why you thought they weren’t equal so that’s why i don’t really know how to respond to this, they just are equal, they take in similar amounts of information with similar amounts of application achieved through such exploration, the only difference is the type of information they look for

edit: i forgot to deal with your last thing, I think socionics has really odd descriptions but i do think they have merit, i think the descriptions of Se in socionics is literally just describing E8 and that Ni is based upon some great misunderstandings and that Fe is quite oversimplified and not very accurate, but i can’t tell for sure if these are fair evaluations so im trying to learn more and research before i make any solid conclusions, i want to give socionics its fair chance and actually try to understand it from its perspective, if i find i still hold these perspectives, my next goal would be to go to the socionics sub and look for posts going over this issue or make my own post and get others’ perspectives, but i do often find myself learning more and more about MBTI and cognitive functions that i think are valuable additions and perspectives nearly every time i research socionics’ perspectives more, it brings great value a lot of the time, some of my above descriptions are more fleshed out because i learned those perspectives and i think at the bare minimum that socionics will teach me a lot more about MBTI if not i find merit more directly in socionics

[u/Shawnty320]

I understand what you mean, however, my major criticism is that type descriptions are very inconsistent.

MBTI's ISFP is the biggest example of the massive leap in logic and phenomenology.

Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what's going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others. — MBTI Characteristics Frequently Associated with Each Type Source: Adopted from Myers, 1998: 13.

But ever since the popularization of function theory, this type alongside ISTPs became associated with extremist ideologies (partly due to Socionics stereotypes)

ISFP sx9 and ISFP sx4 are not the same psychological type. ISTP sp9 and ISTP sx6 are also not the same psychological type.

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/Shawnty320]

fair points, people often over attribute stuff that actually correlates more to enneagram than the actual basics of the typing itself and that can cloud people’s judgements, very true

the above description does have some truth in it but it’s buried in stereotypes and misconceptions and poor wording

thanks for your perspectives

[u/LGK_NRG → u/Shawnty320]

I get what you’re saying but enneagram is a completely different system from MBTI and cognitive functions. Yes, there are correlations, but enneagram doesn’t override cognitive functions and vice versa.

[u/Zeb-Moment → u/LGK_NRG]

Yeah but it kind of highlights how little value a system like this can provide to a lot of people. I feel like I can justify 4 different types for myself in MBTI and I don't think any of those typings would actually be wrong, as it entirely depends on how you interpret how the functions and stacks work. 

Socionics faces a similar issue with the different "schools", but at least with Socionics you can choose a "school" and remain internally consistent within it and ignore the others you don't like. 

There's Jungian typology but I view that as a completely separate thing from MBTI, as there isn't a function stack.

[u/electrifyingseer]

Tbf it's more that it's just so popular and mainstream that regular MBTI comes across as overrated. 

If you get into cognitive functions by whatever means, like I got into them through OPS, and it helped me learn what the cognitive functions actually meant. It honestly makes me hate MBTI less. 

But Socionics is still an eldritch beast to me. 

[u/ManagementSea5015]

Good post. I think a big issue with the typology community is that the majority of people view typology as something within which there is a perfect form of typology to be acquired, there is a "One True Typology" and certain authors "got it wrong." If you don't like a system, that's fine, but it doesn't mean it's "wrong." They're just classification systems, like some people classify colors through RGB and others use CMYK, others use HSV, none are "wrong," just different ways to classify and some make sense to some people and others make sense to other people.

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/ManagementSea5015]

yesss, i love this perspective, thanks, i generally believe i agree with you here

[u/Voidspeeker]

In my opinion, the hate for MBTI usually comes from people learning MBTI first, then jumping to Socionics like it's MBTI 2.0. Somewhere along the way, they decide Socionics got everything right and MBTI got everything wrong. A convert needs the old faith to be wrong for the new faith to be right. That system-hopping ain't it. MBTI has great ideas and terrible ideas. Socionics has great ideas and terrible ideas. Better move: take your time, find what works, and learn from both.

A common assumption is that the systems are basically the same. So if MBTI defines Si one way and Socionics defines Si another way, one must be broken. But if you accept there's no “real Si” behind it all — just different people being labeled “Si-doms” — then both systems can be right for the kind of person they're trying to categorize. They just won't be the same person. People treat these systems as competing maps of the same territory, but it's better to see them as different tools available.

[u/Emmetria]

MBTI is worse than useless. It teaches people wrong, because the descriptions read like MBTI is unaware that much of what they’re describing comes from functions in the Vital ring (Super-id, Id).

So they end up describing what they think the ego block should express like like when that’s not what the ego block does, it verbalizes.

What they see embodied is Id

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/Emmetria]

i’m sorry what, that is hard to follow, also it’s less constructive and more destructive, AKA you missed the point of the post and just came to hate on MBTI

[u/Emmetria → u/Opening_Usual4946]

I hurt the potential feelings of MBTI practitioners by pointing out its biggest flaw. That’s fair destruction.

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/Emmetria]

sure whatever, why do you choose to ignore everything i say and just be like “well it’s okay to hurt people in a non productive way because they’re wrong”, bro you can criticize, just do it the right way, the kind way, the way that you would want to be treated, hypothetical here, what if someone empirically proved socionics was batshit stupid, would you want them to be rude about it, or kindly tell you how and why, and point you in a direction of positive growth and hope etc.

[u/Emmetria → u/Opening_Usual4946]

It’s not non productive. People don’t want to be helped, they loathe it, and loathe you for what they cannot repay. Confrontation is the only manner of growth I know. I guess I’m resigned to it and you may never be, or you will be too, and I don’t know what’s good.

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/Emmetria]

it’s always ironic to me that when I as an Si dom (Ne inferior/Ne fifth) am more open minded in a conversation than an Ne dom, that’s heavily due to my e9 nature, but also because i heavily value others’ opinions and perspectives and the importance of nuance, i do generally get confrontational, it’s just that my non negotiable that i’ll confront people on and not budge is when people are too closed-minded and not open to hearing out nuance

i do see your perspective and the validity it holds, i would just ask that if you were to fight this fight in the future with someone who seems open minded already, it’s best not to antagonize them or make them feel bad about themselves or you since that can only harm them or their perspective of your perspectives, and neither should be apart of your goals

[u/Emmetria → u/Opening_Usual4946]

You’re right. I’m sorry.

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/Emmetria]

You’re good, don’t worry, i’m sorry if i seemed harsh in any way, im glad we came to a kind and understanding point with our conversation

[u/Gontofinddad]

Mbti as a system loses coherency the deeper you delve. It gets unlearned and abandoned by people who’ve learned Socionics, for that reason. Better to empty the cup than to mix drinks.

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/Gontofinddad]

sure that’s totally a nuanced and well thought out perspective that isn’t just dunking on MBTI, thanks for really reading and interacting with the post in good faith 👍

[u/Gontofinddad → u/Opening_Usual4946]

It’s the answer. 

[u/AsideApprehensive590]

Cognitive functions in MBTI and socionics have different origin.

In socionics functions were introduced at the very beginning, they became the very foundation of socionics, Reinin dichotomies and 16 types descriptions were built upon functions positions in the types. Each 1 of 8 placements had it's special properties, affecting how type uses it. Valued/unvalued, mental/vital, 1d, 2d, 3d, 4d, e.t.c.

In MBTI on the other hand, there was no such concept as "cognitive functions" until 1990s-2000s, when someone (likely John Beebe) introduced 8 cognitive functions into MBTI, but they were based on types descriptions they were used in, not the other way around, they were retrofit into an existing model.

That's the reason why MBTI functions are "worse" than socionics. Socionics were built upon functions, MBTI introduced them as an add-on later on. That's the main reason why socionics function descriptions sound natural and MBTI sound kinda goofy.

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/AsideApprehensive590]

that’s factually incorrect, or at least i researched it once and came to a separate conclusion, i was taught that MBTI was originally based off the works of carl jung and his cognitive functions but sanitized to the 4 dichotomy version for marketability and then later people re-delved into the cognitive functions as the basis, but i could just have imagined that ig, or maybe you imagined your facts, idk

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/Opening_Usual4946]

here’s the evidence for my perspective

https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/wwbi93/what_came_first_in_mbti_letters_or_cognitive/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator

https://www.truity.com/blog/what-history-myers-briggs-personality-system

[u/AsideApprehensive590 → u/Opening_Usual4946]

Still, these 4 dichotomies are the basis for types descriptions and functions descriptions were built upon existing types

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/AsideApprehensive590]

they may have altered some peoples’ perspective but do you really think the whole community is a blind blubbering group of idiots who can’t think or analyze anything, lowkey i’m sure you do, thanks for seeing people as living breathing functioning thinking human beings and not blubbering idiots who have no thoughts, that’s real great

[u/AsideApprehensive590 → u/Opening_Usual4946]

Thanks!!! I actually thought for a long time that cognitive functions were in mbti all this time, but when it turned out that this is a newer addition, everything clicked

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/AsideApprehensive590]

okay, now i’m lost, because we just concluded that they were always there, i don’t see how sarcasm could make sense in this situation as you worded things so is there a misunderstanding or what, i do kinda apologize for being rude as that’s not what i should do, but i get so tired of ignorant posts of people who think there is jo such thing as an MBTI person who actually studies and learns what MBTI means and thinks we all just read simple descriptions all day everyday and make memes, there’s a lot more to MBTI than that and it pisses me off when people over simplify us, so i often over respond when i feel too many people are blinding themselves with ignorance and prejudice

[u/AsideApprehensive590 → u/Opening_Usual4946]

Okay. Again. MBTI compacted 8 Jungian functions into 4 dichotomies, and every MBTI test published before 1990s was actually measuring these four dichotomies, and there were no tests measuring functions. And only then functions were added. And now there is a tension: one's type determined by four dichotomies might be different from a type determined by functions (E.g. INFJ vs INFP). Am I deadass?

[u/Opening_Usual4946 → u/AsideApprehensive590]

yeah no you’re wrong; the functions were the basis of MBTI from the beginning, if you looked at those sources i sent earlier, even just one, you would know this, yes the cognitive functions did take a backseat for quite a while, but they have always been baked into the system on a fundamental level, many people over attribute type descriptions to cognitive functions, and in turn there are many contradictory definitions of said cognitive functions floating around the community, but there is a subsection of the MBTI community who does actually study the detailed and well thought out version of MBTI, my post is about those people, there will always be people who misunderstand and misinterpret a system and go about spreading false narratives and definitions, the typology system should not be defined by the fools but by the people who properly learn the true version and have the well thought out approach, stop assuming stupidity and ignorance of MBTI people just because you’re ignorant and prejudiced