I've been wondering why there are two separate theories of psychological types or "personality". You have the traditional MBTI and Socionics. There are probably more but these in specific I'm thinking about. MBTI came into existence around the 1950s, just after the Second World War, while Socionics appeared later in Estonia. But before these, mainly Jung and a few other thinkers from various locations. Which leads me to wonder what anyone ever did before this was written down. Surely people didn't lack a type, it just wasn't "observable". At least within the working intellectual structures that exist today which have surely captivated the minds of several thinkers. In addition, I wonder how many people come across this information. I tend to think it's usually part of the standard cirriculum in schools. When children reach a particular age they are exposed to these ideas, like opening a Christmas present. Many people take these ideas and "run" with them so to speak. I'd imagine many people choose to go into the more technical fields of math or science and skim over the superficial aspect of these. Who really knows, maybe they have a parent who preferred the sciences in comparison to humanities. Maybe some delve deeper into psychological types. And even then some cross paths and have a foot in both pools. But this is all educational. When it comes to countries though it's hard to know what every institution does. Maybe someone tries to explain personality to you in French but the listener is English. In this case one could see how this could lead to miscommunication and mistyping. Not that it isn't hard enough as it is for people to determine their type in a common language.
But ultimately I guess I question whether people are ultimately any better or worse for having "Socionics" as a written theory. Sometimes it's easy I think for individuals to feel like it's "bullshit", and then others may only feel like their type is "bullshit" and be motivated at particular intervals of time to change type. And finally even more disturbing some may even find the idea of "personality" to be "bullshit". I'm not sure what that means, but it could be suggested something similar to a diagnosis of some mental ailment. Therefore by monitoring ones attitudes on such things in say, school or the like, the studied and well versed individual can pick out the "nuts" so to speak to ensure a healthy whole.
But ultimately I guess I question whether people are ultimately any better or worse for having "Socionics" as a written theory. Sometimes it's easy I think for individuals to feel like it's "bullshit", and then others may only feel like their type is "bullshit" and be motivated at particular intervals of time to change type. And finally even more disturbing some may even find the idea of "personality" to be "bullshit". I'm not sure what that means, but it could be suggested something similar to a diagnosis of some mental ailment. Therefore by monitoring ones attitudes on such things in say, school or the like, the studied and well versed individual can pick out the "nuts" so to speak to ensure a healthy whole.