Contradicting Descriptions

[Ezra]

Why is that so many descriptions of each type contradict one another?

[Phaedrus]

Why is that so many descriptions of each type contradict one another?

Do you have any examples of that phenomenon? I think we can explain why that might seem so. (I haven't found many real contradictions in the type descriptions.)

[Ezra]

Go here:

http://socionics.org/ (Sorry, I hated the way it was stretching the page.)

Read about the different descriptions of each type. Especially ENTp. In one, they neglect their health. In another, they take care of their own and of others'.

It could just be down to poor translation.

[Expat]

I haven't looked at the specific details, but anyway descriptions will contradict each other in minor matters.

What counts is the following -- if you read all of Stratiyevskaya's descriptions, and then all of Filatova's, all of Gulenko's, etc, isn't it clear that, overall, the ENTp of one of them is the same as the others'? It's not as if you will think that Filatova's ENTp is Gulenko's ISFj.

[FDG]

Socionics descriptions don't contradict each other, MBTI and socionics ones do to a certain extent, but there is more an overlap among different sets than a real contradiction.

[Khamelion]

G

Read about the different descriptions of each type. Especially ENTp. In one, they neglect their health. In another, they take care of their own and of others'.

.

Maybe it means something different, they take care of something other than health. Perhaps a way of saying they look out for the ones around them?

[Ezra]

I s'pose.

[UDP]

Why is that so many descriptions of each type contradict one another?

Socionics is a new and relatively unorganized field of theory/study. It is not out of the ordinary.

[Ezra]

This is inexcusable. And on the same page (http://the16types.info/types.php?typename=ESTJ). A description of the ESTj.

"This is the capability to run more rapidly then one is required to, to move more quickly than one is required to, to be more impertinent than one is required to"

Then later, Oldham remarks:

"They deliver what is expected of them and no more. They expect others to recognize and respect that limit."

I read that "initiative is habitual to him" then later, it is contradicted by the fact that on the "Likes" list, there is "passivity".

Even if it is a relatively new theory, these two descriptions inexplicably contradict each other.

[Expat]

Ah. Oldham.

You're right.

Those Socionics/Oldham correlations were Jimmy's - the original creator of the site and forum - personal contribution; unfortunately, the way they are put together, it's easier to take for granted that they are "official".

Read the Socionics bit independently from the Oldham bit, that's the way to do it -- perhaps the Oldham bit should have been removed, but it hasn't been *shrug*

[misutii]

I read that "initiative is habitual to him" then later, it is contradicted by the fact that on the "Likes" list, there is "passivity".

I actually like the "Likes" and "Dislikes" lists in conjunction with the other descriptions. While it's true that they're not official socionics correlations I also think you've taken the information out of context. In the ESTJ "Likes", for example, you'll see "passivity" and below that "submissiveness". It seems like you've assumed that they mean an ESTJ likes passivity and submissiveness in **themself**, but that was not written anywhere. Rather it means that they like passivity and submissiveness in 'other' people - and put into context this makes sense because their dual is the INFj.

I'd wager that such is hardly an inextricable contradiction. "initiative is habitual to him" - this characteristic is actually perfectly compatible with "liking" the traits of passivity and submissiveness in other people. This makes sense because if another person is the opposite of submissive or passive then they are controlling and intrusive - both of which are on the "dislikes" list

Also I don't see how:

"This is the capability to run more rapidly then one is required to, to move more quickly than one is required to, to be more impertinent than one is required to"

and

"They deliver what is expected of them and no more. They expect others to recognize and respect that limit."

are at odds with each other. The first statement merely claims that they are 'capable' of exceeding what is required of them. The second statement claims that they limit their actions to what is expected of them. In other words they *can* exceed what is required of them but will not be *forced* to do so by others. Notice that "autonomy" is under "likes" and "demandingness of others" is under "dislikes".

[Ezra]

I read that "initiative is habitual to him" then later, it is contradicted by the fact that on the "Likes" list, there is "passivity".

I actually like the "Likes" and "Dislikes" lists in conjunction with the other descriptions. While it's true that they're not official socionics correlations I also think you've taken the information out of context. In the ESTJ "Likes", for example, you'll see "passivity" and below that "submissiveness". It seems like you've assumed that they mean an ESTJ likes passivity and submissiveness in **themself**, but that was not written anywhere. Rather it means that they like passivity and submissiveness in 'other' people - and put into context this makes sense because their dual is the INFj.

I'd wager that such is hardly an inextricable contradiction. "initiative is habitual to him" - this characteristic is actually perfectly compatible with "liking" the traits of passivity and submissiveness in other people. This makes sense because if another person is the opposite of submissive or passive then they are controlling and intrusive - both of which are on the "dislikes" list

Also I don't see how:

"This is the capability to run more rapidly then one is required to, to move more quickly than one is required to, to be more impertinent than one is required to"

and

"They deliver what is expected of them and no more. They expect others to recognize and respect that limit."

are at odds with each other. The first statement merely claims that they are 'capable' of exceeding what is required of them. The second statement claims that they limit their actions to what is expected of them. In other words they *can* exceed what is required of them but will not be *forced* to do so by others. Notice that "autonomy" is under "likes" and "demandingness of others" is under "dislikes".

Congratulations for picking up on it. I saw the logic of it before I made the post, but decided to post it any way. Despite this, if you look at that page, you will find contradictions.

For example, according to Oldham, ESTjs dislike "compulsory activity". Yet this by nature is contradictory to the ESTj's "obedience to rules", as the Lytov description asserts; compulsory activity is - by definition - application of the rules, and abidance by them. An ESTj would have no problem with following the rules, and yet Oldham claims they would.

Also, consider this glaring and unmistakable contradiction. According, to Oldham, the ESTj likes "deviousness" and "evasion or circumvention of rules". Yet how can this be, when Lytov clearly outlines the ESTj's "belief in playing fair"? Indeed, "His motto sounds: force, integrity and a sense of duty." Does this sound to you like evasion or circumvention of rules? And how can "initiative is habitual to him", if - as Oldham states - he likes "delaying tactics"?

[ThePeddler]

Oldham is not officially connected to socionics. So you can't say "Oldham says" antything about socionics. He's not talking about socionics. He's talking about Oldham types. Those correlations are not accepted. Those correlations are just the work of an amateur. It's the same as if me or you were to find two systems and connect them. Just because they are connected doesn't make them true.

[misutii]

I read that "initiative is habitual to him" then later, it is contradicted by the fact that on the "Likes" list, there is "passivity".

I actually like the "Likes" and "Dislikes" lists in conjunction with the other descriptions. While it's true that they're not official socionics correlations I also think you've taken the information out of context. In the ESTJ "Likes", for example, you'll see "passivity" and below that "submissiveness". It seems like you've assumed that they mean an ESTJ likes passivity and submissiveness in **themself**, but that was not written anywhere. Rather it means that they like passivity and submissiveness in 'other' people - and put into context this makes sense because their dual is the INFj.

I'd wager that such is hardly an inextricable contradiction. "initiative is habitual to him" - this characteristic is actually perfectly compatible with "liking" the traits of passivity and submissiveness in other people. This makes sense because if another person is the opposite of submissive or passive then they are controlling and intrusive - both of which are on the "dislikes" list

Also I don't see how:

"This is the capability to run more rapidly then one is required to, to move more quickly than one is required to, to be more impertinent than one is required to"

and

"They deliver what is expected of them and no more. They expect others to recognize and respect that limit."

are at odds with each other. The first statement merely claims that they are 'capable' of exceeding what is required of them. The second statement claims that they limit their actions to what is expected of them. In other words they *can* exceed what is required of them but will not be *forced* to do so by others. Notice that "autonomy" is under "likes" and "demandingness of others" is under "dislikes".

Congratulations for picking up on it. I saw the logic of it before I made the post, but decided to post it any way. Despite this, if you look at that page, you will find contradictions.

For example, according to Oldham, ESTjs dislike "compulsory activity". Yet this by nature is contradictory to the ESTj's "obedience to rules", as the Lytov description asserts; compulsory activity is - by definition - application of the rules, and abidance by them. An ESTj would have no problem with following the rules, and yet Oldham claims they would.

Also, consider this glaring and unmistakable contradiction. According, to Oldham, the ESTj likes "deviousness" and "evasion or circumvention of rules". Yet how can this be, when Lytov clearly outlines the ESTj's "belief in playing fair"? Indeed, "His motto sounds: force, integrity and a sense of duty." Does this sound to you like evasion or circumvention of rules? And how can "initiative is habitual to him", if - as Oldham states - he likes "delaying tactics"?

I agree that Oldham's description is not all that sound for ESTj and so shouldn't be taken overly seriously. That being said I think a lot of the statements in other ESTj descriptions are still too vague to overly contradict with Oldham's description.

"Force integrity and sense of duty," sure, but according to what? I think that ESTjs, like many other types, act according to different standards in different environments (i.e. amongst loved ones vs. at the workplace vs. in a crisis situation). An ESTj that feels like he/she's in control of a situation, in my experience, acts much differently than an ESTj that's insecure about being controlled by others.

In terms of "playing fair" and "circumvention of rules" here's a good example. Me and my friend used to play FIFA (soccer game for ps2) with an ESTj. In this game there was a notorious "cheap" way to score, by running down the wing and crossing it into the box where a player would head it in. The ESTj would just do this same move over and over and over, never trying anything different. Me and my friend, on the other hand, had realized this cheap bug and had an agreement to not do it to each other as we got no pleasure from scoring a cheap ugly goal, so we adapted our tactics. The ESTj, though, was most concerned with winning rather than using strategy and so he never adapted his tactics and continued to use the same dirty cheap bug (which was btw fixed in the game released the following year). I think you're associating "fair" with "noble" but they're different things. as another example remember 2d fighting games at the arcade? An ESTj would choose the character that had the cheapest most annoying move and repeat the same move over and over and over, not bothering to change their tactics or even attempt to try a new strategy until someone finally came along and repeatedly pwn3d them - thus an example "delayed tactics" maybe?

This example shows how an ESTj can both "play fair" while at the same time "circumventing" rules. By this I mean they may purposely look for and exploit loopholes that serve their advantage, in whatever they're doing, regardless of whether or not such a path was meant to be taken (ESTj = good lawyer, lawyers play by the law[fair] while simultaneously looking for ways around it --> i think many would agree that lawyers can be quite devious, if you don't just remember that O.J. is legally innocent of murder, lol)

Anyways hope that made sense

[misutii]

Oldham is not officially connected to socionics. So you can't say "Oldham says" antything about socionics. He's not talking about socionics. He's talking about Oldham types. Those correlations are not accepted. Those correlations are just the work of an amateur. It's the same as if me or you were to find two systems and connect them. Just because they are connected doesn't make them true.

I'm not saying Oldham says anything about socionics, merely debating whether Oldham's description contradicts socionics descriptions. If you refuse to acknowledge the validity of any debate containing "unofficial" links to socionics then might I add that your presence in this forum is painfully ironic. Oh, and before I forget, thank-you so so much for your insightful contribution. It truly filled the gaping void for understanding inside my heart... inside my mind, oh what a glorious feeling to feel fulfilled.

[ThePeddler]

I was more talking to Ezra, but i guess it does apply to you too...

[ThePeddler]

Thinking further, I do think that Oldham types can be applied to Socionics. But I do not at all think the current correlations are right...

(And if you were expecting an *internet* argument, Sorry, but I'm above that... but a little uncalled for hostility is always nice...Brightens my day...)

[Ezra]

I agree that Oldham's description is not all that sound for ESTj and so shouldn't be taken overly seriously. That being said I think a lot of the statements in other ESTj descriptions are still too vague to overly contradict with Oldham's description.

"Force integrity and sense of duty," sure, but according to what? I think that ESTjs, like many other types, act according to different standards in different environments (i.e. amongst loved ones vs. at the workplace vs. in a crisis situation). An ESTj that feels like he/she's in control of a situation, in my experience, acts much differently than an ESTj that's insecure about being controlled by others.

In terms of "playing fair" and "circumvention of rules" here's a good example. Me and my friend used to play FIFA (soccer game for ps2) with an ESTj. In this game there was a notorious "cheap" way to score, by running down the wing and crossing it into the box where a player would head it in. The ESTj would just do this same move over and over and over, never trying anything different. Me and my friend, on the other hand, had realized this cheap bug and had an agreement to not do it to each other as we got no pleasure from scoring a cheap ugly goal, so we adapted our tactics. The ESTj, though, was most concerned with winning rather than using strategy and so he never adapted his tactics and continued to use the same dirty cheap bug (which was btw fixed in the game released the following year). I think you're associating "fair" with "noble" but they're different things. as another example remember 2d fighting games at the arcade? An ESTj would choose the character that had the cheapest most annoying move and repeat the same move over and over and over, not bothering to change their tactics or even attempt to try a new strategy until someone finally came along and repeatedly pwn3d them - thus an example "delayed tactics" maybe?

This example shows how an ESTj can both "play fair" while at the same time "circumventing" rules. By this I mean they may purposely look for and exploit loopholes that serve their advantage, in whatever they're doing, regardless of whether or not such a path was meant to be taken (ESTj = good lawyer, lawyers play by the law[fair] while simultaneously looking for ways around it --> i think many would agree that lawyers can be quite devious, if you don't just remember that O.J. is legally innocent of murder, lol)

Anyways hope that made sense

Yes, it made sense. But you're cutting it far too fine, just like a lawyer. You'd make a good lawyer.

[misutii]

Thinking further, I do think that Oldham types can be applied to Socionics. But I do not at all think the current correlations are right...

(And if you were expecting an *internet* argument, Sorry, but I'm above that... but a little uncalled for hostility is always nice...Brightens my day...)

don't worry I lack the commitment needed for those, anyways I'd hardly call it 'uncalled for hostility', more of a mild provocation that stemmed from your own provocative little post. You see, you made a point; a point that may be valid, but you didn't explain why. No offense, but taking a stand on a subject, in this forum, without helping others understand why, is in my opinion akin to talking to yourself in the mirror or, for that matter, to talking AT someone, which I feel obliged to inform you is quite rude, lol, so don't be shy, share your correlations.

Yes, it made sense. But you're cutting it far too fine, just like a lawyer. You'd make a good lawyer.

I suppose, but I think it's important for people to carefully interpret type descriptions, to understand what they mean to say when that meaning is lost and muddied in translation (i.e. from Russian to English) -it leads to confusion and so it makes sense we come here to get a better understanding.

[Blaze]

Thinking further, I do think that Oldham types can be applied to Socionics. But I do not at all think the current correlations are right...

(And if you were expecting an *internet* argument, Sorry, but I'm above that... but a little uncalled for hostility is always nice...Brightens my day...)

don't worry I lack the commitment needed for those, anyways I'd hardly call it 'uncalled for hostility', more of a mild provocation that stemmed from your own provocative little post. You see, you made a point; a point that may be valid, but you didn't explain why. No offense, but taking a stand on a subject, in this forum, without helping others understand why, is in my opinion akin to talking to yourself in the mirror or, for that matter, to talking AT someone, which I feel obliged to inform you is quite rude, lol, so don't be shy, share your correlations.

Yes, it made sense. But you're cutting it far too fine, just like a lawyer. You'd make a good lawyer.

I suppose, but I think it's important for people to carefully interpret type descriptions, to understand what they mean to say when that meaning is lost and muddied in translation (i.e. from Russian to English) -it leads to confusion and so it makes sense we come here to get a better understanding.

and you have helped us quite a bit with this vis a vis the filatova's! :wink:

[misutii]

and you have helped us quite a bit with this vis a vis the filatova's! :wink:

lol thx i try!