Socionics analysis of INFP and INFJ typelogic descriptions

[Expat]

Just for fun, and to illustrate a point.

The Myers-Briggs functional classifications will be analysed as part of the description. I deleted the poetry bits.

INFPs never seem to lose their sense of wonder. One might say they see life through rose-colored glasses. It's as though they live at the edge of a looking-glass world where mundane objects come to life, where flora and fauna take on near-human qualities. So far intuition generally, but "rose-colored glasses" suggests more Delta NF

INFP children often exhibit this in a 'Calvin and Hobbes' fashion, switching from reality to fantasy and back again. With few exceptions, it is the NF child who readily develops imaginary playmates (as with Anne of Green Gables's "bookcase girlfriend"--her own reflection) and whose stuffed animals come to life like the Velveteen Rabbit and the Skin Horse:

"...Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand..." (the Skin Horse)
INFPs have the ability to see good in almost anyone or anything. Even for the most unlovable the INFP is wont to have pity. This is far more the typical Delta characteristic rather than the Beta .

Of course, not all of life is rosy, and INFPs are not exempt from the same disappointments and frustrations common to humanity. As INTPs tend to have a sense of failed competence, INFPs struggle with the issue of their own ethical perfection, e.g., performance of duty for the greater cause. (that is far more IJ than IP, more than )An INFP friend describes the inner conflict as not good versus bad, but on a grand scale, Good vs. Evil. Luke Skywalker in Star Wars depicts this conflict in his struggle between the two sides of "The Force." Although the dark side must be reckoned with, the INFP believes that good ultimately triumphs. All this is sheer Delta and not Beta.

Some INFPs have a gift for taking technical information and putting it into layman's terms. Brendan Kehoe's Zen and the Art of the Internet is one example of this "de-jargoning" talent in action. Is that a characteristic of PoLR? Hardly.

Functional Analysis:

Introverted Feeling
INFPs live primarily in a rich inner world of introverted Feeling. Being inward-turning, the natural attraction is away from world and toward essence and ideal. This introversion of dominant Feeling, receiving its data from extraverted intuition, must be the source of the quixotic nature of these usually gentle beings. Feeling is caught in the approach- avoidance bind between concern both for people and for All Creatures Great and Small (is that a Se-dual seeking IEI?) and a psycho-magnetic repulsion from the same. The "object," be it homo sapiens or a mere representation of an organism, is valued only to the degree that the object contains some measure of the inner Essence or greater Good. That is + ) Doing a good deed, for example, may provide intrinsic satisfaction which is only secondary to the greater good of striking a blow against Man's Inhumanity to Mankind. More of the same.

Extraverted iNtuition
Extraverted intuition faces outward, greeting the world on behalf of Feeling. What the observer usually sees is creativity with implied good will. Intuition spawns this type's philosophical bent and strengthens pattern perception. It combines as auxiliary with introverted Feeling and gives rise to unusual skill in both character development and fluency with language--a sound basis for the development of literary facility. If INTPs aspire to word mechanics, INFPs would be verbal artists. This does not really point either way.

Introverted Sensing
Sensing is introverted and often invisible. This stealth function in the third position gives INFPs a natural inclination toward absent- mindedness and other-worldliness, however, Feeling's strong people awareness provides a balancing, mitigating effect. This introverted Sensing is somewhat categorical, a subdued version of SJ sensing. In the third position, however, it is easily overridden by the stronger functions. Neither does this.

Extraverted Thinking
The INFP may turn to inferior extraverted Thinking for help in focusing on externals and for closure. INFPs can even masquerade in their ESTJ business suit, but not without expending considerable energy. The inferior, problematic nature of Extraverted Thinking is its lack of context and proportion. Single impersonal facts may loom large or attain higher priority than more salient principles which are all but overlooked. Does not mean much.

[Expat]

Beneath the quiet exterior, INFJs hold deep convictions about the weightier matters of life. Those who are activists -- INFJs gravitate toward such a role -- are there for the cause, not for personal glory or political power.

INFJs are champions of the oppressed and downtrodden. They often are found in the wake of an emergency, rescuing those who are in acute distress. INFJs may fantasize about getting revenge on those who victimize the defenseless. The concept of 'poetic justice' is appealing to the INFJ. That doesn"t sound like an EII.

"There's something rotten in Denmark." Accurately suspicious about others' motives, (are these EIIs?) INFJs are not easily led. These are the people that you can rarely fool any of the time. Though affable and sympathetic to most, INFJs are selective about their friends. Such a friendship is a symbiotic bond that transcends mere words. Ok this could go either way.

INFJs have a knack for fluency in language and facility in communication. In addition, nonverbal sensitivity enables the INFJ to know and be known by others intimately. This does not point either way

Writing, counseling, public service and even politics are areas where INFJs frequently find their niche.

Functional Analysis:

Introverted iNtuition
Introverted intuitives, INFJs enjoy a greater clarity of perception of inner, unconscious processes than all but their INTJ cousins. Just as SP types commune with the object and "live in the here and now" of the physical world, INFJs readily grasp the hidden psychological stimuli behind the more observable dynamics of behavior and affect. Their amazing ability to deduce the inner workings of the mind, will and emotions of others gives INFJs their reputation as prophets and seers. Unlike the confining, routinizing nature of introverted sensing, introverted intuition frees this type to act insightfully and spontaneously as unique solutions arise on an event by event basis. This sounds like Ni but then they are basing it on Jung.

Extraverted Feeling
Extraverted feeling, the auxiliary deciding function, expresses a range of emotion and opinions of, for and about people. INFJs, like many other FJ types, find themselves caught between the desire to express their wealth of feelings and moral conclusions about the actions and attitudes of others, and the awareness of the consequences of unbridled candor. Some vent the attending emotions in private, to trusted allies. Such confidants are chosen with care, for INFJs are well aware of the treachery that can reside in the hearts of mortals. This particular combination of introverted intuition and extraverted feeling provides INFJs with the raw material from which perceptive counselors are shaped. Goes against EII.

Introverted Thinking
The INFJ's thinking is introverted, turned toward the subject. Perhaps it is when the INFJ's thinking function is operative that he is most aloof. A comrade might surmise that such detachment signals a disillusionment, that she has also been found lacking by the sardonic eye of this one who plumbs the depths of the human spirit. Experience suggests that such distancing is merely an indication that the seer is hard at work and focusing energy into this less efficient tertiary function. Means little.

Extraverted Sensing
INFJs are twice blessed with clarity of vision, both internal and external. Just as they possess inner vision which is drawn to the forms of the unconscious, they also have external sensing perception which readily takes hold of worldly objects. Sensing, however, is the weakest of the INFJ's arsenal and the most vulnerable. INFJs, like their fellow intuitives, may be so absorbed in intuitive perceiving that they become oblivious to physical reality. The INFJ under stress may fall prey to various forms of immediate gratification. Awareness of extraverted sensing is probably the source of the "SP wannabe" side of INFJs. Many yearn to live spontaneously; it's not uncommon for INFJ actors to take on an SP (often ESTP) role.

Even if we discount the functional bit -- is it any wonder that EIIs identify with INFP rather than INFJ here? I think perhaps EIEs would identify most like the INFJ description.

That is the origin of a lot of the confusion, and it can't be easily brushed aside.

[Expat]

Another comment.

I'm not going to do it; but you get pretty much the general picture from the descriptions at personalitypage. Whenever you look at the types' deeper motivations - and separated from descriptions of superficial behavior - it is clear that the INFP is much closer to an EII than to an IEI.

So - based on this kind of descriptions - it makes perfect sense for an EII to identify with the INFP, and even rather strongly, and oppose identification with INFJ.

It is perfectly possible that the official manuals of Myers-Briggs have INFP descriptions that not only are totally different but actually resemble the EII - again, I repeat, in their deeper motivations. I don't know. But why should those popular online descriptions be that different from the "official" ones?

Read the typelogic and personalitypage descriptions of the INFP. Then read Stratievskaya's and socioscope.com's descriptions of the IEI. Are those the same kind of people? You decide. I think you will find that the INFP is much closer to their descriptions of the EII.

That is why so many EIIs say that they are INFP. Because they are stupid? No. It is the logical conclusion with those descriptions.

Now it could be said that those descriptions are bad. Fine. Then I ask -- are they so bad, that they don't even reflect the same kind of person?

[Expat]

Another point.

It is obvious that if you go for 4 dichotomies, you will be more likely - not certain - to see yourself as I, N, F and J in Myers-Briggs and then as introvert, intuitive, ethical and rational in socionics.

And why? Because if you do that, you necessarily have to blur the difference between and , and , and , and . And if you do that, of course the difference between an IEI and an EII will get blurred, and only the rationality/irrationality dichotomy will separate them -- which is of course much less than the true differences between those types.

However, in socionics, the types are not defined by the four scales. They are defined by their deeper motivations, and what they expect from others - they are defined by their functions, and then the difference between IEI and EII is not merely one single scale, but between and .

Therefore, by focusing on those 4 dichotomies you are actually destroying information - you are eliminating functional differences that allow you to see the differences between IEI and EII more clearly.

When you go back to descriptions, even MBTT ones, some of that information is still there. So you see again the INFP - EII similarities. If you go to the 4 dichotomies, you destroy that information again.

That is the explanation for a lot of the nonsense that has been said here on this issue. If you understand socionics, you do not want to convert the differences between and into a mere difference between J/j and P/p -- you want to have as much information as possible.

If you don't have a clue about socionics, then you don't realize that - or you don't like that - and you go for the silly 4 dichotomies and J/j and P/p.

That is about it. Those who can't see that don't have a clue about socionics.

[Expat]

A disclaimer, to avoid misunderstandings.

I am not making a case for the bloody J/P shift. I do not see any need to assume some kind of consistent correlation between the Myers-Briggs and socionics types. I think that if you do the same exercise with ISFP descriptions, the functional analysis will point towards SEI. So even among introverted types, there are no consistent rules.

[marooned]

I think that most of the tests direct their questions in ways to determine where one is on certain dichotomies: Are you S or N? J or P? etc.

There are some exceptions... I actually looked at the html code on one test before and figured out how it was calculating results... and it had Ti vs. Fe, Ni vs. Se, Fi vs. Te, and Ne vs. Si instead (according to its definitions of Ni, Ne, Si, Se, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti that is). That test is here: Team Technology Test They've changed it since I last looked at it... it used to give raw #s for each type, which I figured out how it was calculating those. Now it's giving percentages instead, and I'm not sure how it's coming up with those at the moment. When I looked around their website, they actually had a lot of stuff explaining (their) "theory" and were pretty transparent about it in general. It's still a MBTI-like test. But it was one of the more interconnective ones I found... a little more complicated than just J or P, N or S, etc.

------------------------------------------

Many questions arise in my mind. Here are a few:

1. Does I(Socionics)=I(MBTI), does N(Socionics)=N(MBTI), etc. ???

I don't have a full answer... only what I sort of sense about it. I get the feeling that the I vs. E and N vs. S conceptions are close enough in both systems (and again, this is just a feeling I have about it right now, not based on too much concrete stuff). The P vs. J and F vs. T dichotomies, on the other hand, don't seem to match up as well. I haven't looked into the P vs. J thing much, but enough people in this forum have mentioned it that I'm getting the feeling there are some differences (again, I really should actually read something about it). I have noticed some differences in F vs. T in each system. On a lot of the tests online that seem MBTI-based, F/T is a distinction about how one *makes decisions,* where as that seems to only be part of what F/T is about in Socionics.

2. Does INFp(Socionics)=INFP(MBTI) in terms of the preferences orders?

(I've just picked INFp to use in this case... you could fill in any type.)

The answer to this is obviously "no." INFp = Ni, Fe, Si, Te and INFP = Fi, Ne, Si, Te. These are not the same, and the descriptions reflect that. There seems to be an assumption that certain answers to the test questions lead to this sort of preference order... I think what I'm getting at is that I see a (sometimes loose) correlation between, say the description of the INFP above that Expat posted and a preference order of Fi, Ne, Si, Te (which is why Expat was saying it sound more like INFj in Socionics than INFp).

What I don't see is a correlation between the description/preference order and some of these tests that are online. It's like the tests come up with, say INFP, based on J/P, I/E, etc. dichotomies and then just assume that this is going to match an Fi, Ne, Si, Te preference order and description--but the actual link or correlation between the two appears to be missing. This is still just a feeling at this point. I apologize that I've put no effort in backing it up. I also realize this is rather beside the point from what Expat was talking about.

3. Do the descriptions of INFp and INFP themselves match?

It's looking like they don't, which was Expat's point I believe. Socionics appears more clear than MBTI in that you can trace the descriptions, to the theory better... it's more transparent and consistent in and of itself. But maybe if I studied MBTI more I'd think differently.

4. Do all of these MBTI-like online tests even match with one another???

-------------------------------------

What I often find is I get INFP due to my choices on these dichotomy questions (N or S, I or E, etc.). But then when it says what the preference order is for INFP (Fi, Ne, Si, Te), I'm like "uh, that doesn't seem right..." Then I read the description and some things will resonate with me while others will be way off. Before I equated this to my idea of how trying to squeeze all of humanity into 16 types of people isn't going to work very well.

As far as the dichotomies go, I think in any case, I know I am I, N, and P. In either system. But I think my idea of the essence of I/E, N/S, and P/J is formed more by what I see in people in real-life and in myself, and may not match either system exactly.

I'm aware that Socionics is not about thinking in terms of these dichotomies. Socionics seems more about thinking in terms of functions themselves and relationships between people. I'm not quite with it here yet either, but I am starting to catch the drift. I often start out very abstract when learning something new.

I really hope this made sense.

[aestrivex]

I think that most of the tests direct their questions in ways to determine where one is on certain dichotomies: Are you S or N? J or P? etc.

There are some exceptions... I actually looked at the html code on one test before and figured out how it was calculating results... and it had Ti vs. Fe, Ni vs. Se, Fi vs. Te, and Ne vs. Si instead (according to its definitions of Ni, Ne, Si, Se, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti that is). That test is here: Team Technology Test They've changed it since I last looked at it... it used to give raw #s for each type, which I figured out how it was calculating those. Now it's giving percentages instead, and I'm not sure how it's coming up with those at the moment. When I looked around their website, they actually had a lot of stuff explaining (their) "theory" and were pretty transparent about it in general. It's still a MBTI-like test. But it was one of the more interconnective ones I found... a little more complicated than just J or P, N or S, etc.

i really really like that test, though for obvious reasons i do think its structure would need a bit of work to conform with socionics. it was rather strange; i clearly scored much, much higher in all 4 categories on Ti, Ni, Te, and Si, which gave all the IXTX types virtually the same score.

[marooned]

it was rather strange; i clearly scored much, much higher in all 4 categories on Ti, Ni, Te, and Si, which gave all the IXTX types virtually the same score.

Yeah... On a related note, if I answer every question on that test like

Ti>Fe
Te>Fi
Si>Ne
Se>Ni

Then it comes up with these results:

ISTJ = 98%
ISTP = 98%
ESTP = 98%
ESTJ = 98%

ISFJ = 71%
ESFP = 71%
INTP = 71%
ENTJ = 71%

INTJ = 37%
ISFP = 37%
ENTP = 37%
ESFJ = 37%

INFJ = 10%
INFP = 10%
ENFP = 10%
ENFJ = 10%

And then it says: "From this table, you can see that the two highest scoring types are ESTJ and ESTP."

But what about ISTP and ISTJ which were also 98%?

Before the site changed their test, if I did something like this for the answers, it would actually pick 1 type (if I remember correctly) even though 4 of them had the same value. Actually, I have to have remembered that wrong... that just doesn't make sense.

Maybe it just takes E over I by default... thinking maybe that more people are extroverts than introverts??? I dunno.

So if one answered every question like Ni>Se, Si>Ne, Ti>Fe, Te>Fi it would do the same thing, only in a different pattern... So all IXTX's would be 98%. I think...

[marooned]

I was thinking more...

So on that TeamTech test, I score very high on Ni, Ne, Fi... then pretty high on Fe and Ti... then low on Te, Se, and Si.

On that test I think that Te is defined as *organizing other people* which is very different from the Socionics idea of Te. Fe seems to be about *managing others emotions* on that test... I'm not sure if that matches up with Socionics. Come to think of it, do Ni and Ne (on the test) even match up with the Socionics ideas of them?

Anyway that test's version of the functions on the whole doesn't really appear to match up with Socionics when broken down. For instance, N on the whole might match Socionics N closely enough to work. But Ni, Ne don't seem to match Socionics and . Same with Ti/Te...

Anyway.

[aestrivex]

So if one answered every question like Ni>Se, Si>Ne, Ti>Fe, Te>Fi it would do the same thing, only in a different pattern... So all IXTX's would be 98%. I think...

well the strength of my responses varied.

[marooned]

well the strength of my responses varied.

I know. I was rounding up. :-)

[Phaedrus]

Interesting test that might be rather accurate. Pretty typical result for me:

INTP 84%
INTJ 80%
ISTP 77%
INFJ 75%
INFP 74%
ISFP 67%
ISTJ 65%
ISFJ 61%
ENTP 47%
ENFP 43%
ENTJ 41%
ESTJ 34%
ESTP 33%
ENFJ 31%
ESFP 28%
ESFJ 24%

[Expat]

What I don't see is a correlation between the description/preference order and some of these tests that are online. It's like the tests come up with, say INFP, based on J/P, I/E, etc. dichotomies and then just assume that this is going to match an Fi, Ne, Si, Te preference order and description--but the actual link or correlation between the two appears to be missing. This is still just a feeling at this point. I apologize that I've put no effort in backing it up. I also realize this is rather beside the point from what Expat was talking about.

It's not beside the point at all. I think it's all part of the same problem.

[Jarno]

nice topic.

These MBTI descriptions lack the core essence of the types involved.

I noticed on their website they have developed a relationship model, somewhat similar to Socionics.

http://typelogic.com/afa2.html

[Expat]

These MBTI descriptions lack the core essence of the types involved.

But what are their "core essence" then in your opinion? They give enough of that to make EIIs identify with INFP rather than with INFJ.

So, what is the correct "core essence" of those types? Which MBTI descriptions would give the correct ones?

[Ezra]

Phaedrus, are you not concerned that Expat's analysis blew your logic clean out of the water?

Results from the test:

ISTP 86%
INTP 81%
ISTJ 78%
INTJ 69%
ESTJ 68%
ENTJ 64%
ISFJ 60%
ESTP 58%
INFJ 50%
ISFP 44%
INFP 40%
ENTP 48%
ESFP 39%
ENFP 30%
ESFJ 27%
ENFJ 22%

I find that very, very interesting, if not for the fact that it defied all expectations I have/had of myself It purports that I am an Introvert, not an Extravert. Not only this, but that I am of the IP temperament - the one I'd consider last when looking at potential types. It maintains that I'm clearly Thinking, but that I am IP before IJ, and the first type of the EJ temperament is in fifth position.

Nonetheless, it's MBTI.

[Jarno]

They give enough of that to make EIIs identify with INFP rather than with INFJ.

Yes, I don't disagree with that.

So, what is the correct "core essence" of those types? Which MBTI descriptions would give the correct ones?

I rather saw some shorter punch lines instead of those vague story's. Something like the type messages of Rick.
BTW My personal favourite book concerning MBTI descriptions is "The Art of Speed Reading People".

[Expat]

Phaedrus, are you not concerned that Expat's analysis blew your logic clean out of the water?

That's a meaningless question. The standard answer is that by definition he's right and those who disagree are wrong; or that those descriptions are wrong or irrelevant. Etc etc.

I rather saw some shorter punch lines instead of those vague story's. Something like the type messages of Rick.
BTW My personal favourite book concerning MBTI descriptions is "The Art of Speed Reading People".

I happen to have that book,and it's not really MBTI but a mix of MBTI and Keirsey.

And the INFJ as described there isn't an EII, either, in their motivations; and the INFP as described there is not exactly an EII but even less so an IEI as to their motivatons. The creature described there as INFP sure as hell ain't a SLE's dual.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, are you not concerned that Expat's analysis blew your logic clean out of the water?

No, because it doesn't. If you take a closer look at what Expat actually says, you will see that he is not even contradicting what I say about the correlations between the types in Socionics and MBTT.

[marooned]

Phaedrus, are you not concerned that Expat's analysis blew your logic clean out of the water?

No, because it doesn't. If you take a closer look at what Expat actually says, you will see that he is not even contradicting what I say about the correlations between the types in Socionics and MBTT.

I thought your position was that MBTI Type = Socionics Type in that if someone is an ABCD in MBTI then they are an ABCd in Socionics, and vice versa?

It seemed your arguments went sort of like this:

Person A: I *know* I am an ABCD in MBTI, there is no question, but I don't know my Socionics type.
Phaedrus: If you are without a doubt an ABCD in MBTI, then you are without a doubt an ABCd in Socionics.

Or this:

Person B: I'm an ABCD in MBTI but I'm an EFGh in Socionics.
Phaedrus: You can't be both. If you're an ABCD in MBTI then you are an ABCd in Socionics. If you are an EFGh in Socionics then you are an EFGH in MBTI. It is one or the other (ABCD/ABCd or EFGH/EFGh).
Person B: I am certainly not an EFGH in MBTI. And I can't see myself as an ABCd in Socionics.
Phaedrus: Then you have an incorrect belief. Either you are incorrect about what you are in MBTI or you are incorrect about what you are in Socionics. One of them is wrong.

Were you arguing something else?

--------------------------------------------------------------

If you were making arguments of the sort I gave examples of above, then it's hard to find a way that this doesn't contradict what Expat has pointed out.

One way I can think of it so that it won't contradict is this: You believe there is some sort of essence of each of these 16 types that is roughly the same in both systems. So all tests (whether MBTI or not) and all descriptions (whether MBTI or Socionics) will eventually lead to that essence of what a person is. You would then not be focused so much on one system or the other, but more concerned with an idea that there are these 16 different structures for the human brain/personality and everyone has 1 of the 16. The systems (MBTI and Socionics) approximate what a person's internal structure (or essence) is, so once someone knows their particular essence or structure they should be the same in either system (as both systems are trying to get at the same thing only they differ somewhat in their method, or theory). If you see it this way, I can see that you might call it a "top down" approach.

That wouldn't be a very logical way to see it though. And I imagine if I went around the forum saying this that certain people might start debating it with me because when you break down each system (MBTI, Socionics) in a way like Expat did, the inconsistencies/confusions are everywhere. Logically they are not the same. Logically, it is perfectly conceivable for someone to be a different type in each. And if I were to go about arguing this, one reason people would likely start debating it is that I'd be getting at some notion I personally have about the types (I would have my own idea of them that somehow was compatible with both systems), and people would say "well it's great that you have this notion, but it isn't actually Socionics you're talking about."

Really, Socionics does not need MBTI or references to MBTI (MBTI is a separate theory of personality, even if it's a similar one). Socionics can stand on its own (as can MBTI). If one is trying to get at an all encompassing theory of personality then it might be relevant to look at both systems (among other things), but if one is just trying to understand Socionics, then it might be better to just look at it by itself without drawing MBTI into it. But the problem is that because there are so many similarities, confusion can arise between MBTI types and Socionics types (especially when people learned about MBTI first). If one doesn't get confused over the similarities, then they might get hung up on the differences.

Either the systems are not entirely equivalent, which is why someone could be, say an XXXj in one and an XXXP in another; or the systems are equivalent in which case XXXj=XXXJ and XXXp=XXXP. If I had to go with one or the other explanation, I'd go with the former. And even if it is the former that is true (since the latter makes little sense to me), that doesn't mean that if you approximate each system enough they don't eventually "round" to being the same thing. As an analogy, you can round both 46.7 and 48.5 up to 50.0... but if you're exacting about it, 46.7 does not equal 48.5, and depending on what it is, that difference of 1.8 could be very important.

These are my thoughts for now. Anyone else have thoughts?

[aestrivex]

my thoughts suggest that 50.0 represents three significant figures.

[marooned]

Thank you Niffweed. I edited that out since I realized it's been too long, and I don't remember sig figs very well.

[Jarno]

ofcourse the argument ABCD = ABCd doesn't hold true for descriptions that are awful.

This typologic description is not a very good one, as has been proven by Expat.

[Logos]

Actually Phaedrus's argument is something along the lines that both MBTI and Socionics are trying to describe the same phenomenon of differences in people and functional preferences. So for Phaedrus, if Socionics describes Person X as ABCd and MBTI describes the same Person X as ABCD, Person X must be ABCd and ABCD since both systems are attempting to describe the same phenomenon within Person X. And Person X cannot be ABCD in MBTI and WXYz in Socionics since the Socionics WXYz is actually describing someone of type Person Y, so they can only be ABCd in Socionics if they are an ABCD in MBTI.

[aestrivex]

Thank you Niffweed. I edited that out since I realized it's been too long, and I don't remember sig figs very well.

and i just finished listening to the same damn significant figures lectures for the fourth year in a row. every new science class simply assumes that we never even heard about the concept.

[Creepy-bg]

aren't higher maths a prerequisate to most of the sciences? they were back when I was in highschool. At least for Chemestry and Physics. Sheesh significant digits isn't even higher maths... that's almost remedial shit.

[aestrivex]

aren't higher maths a prerequisate to most of the sciences? they were back when I was in highschool. At least for Chemestry and Physics. Sheesh significant digits isn't even higher maths... that's almost remedial shit.

what do you mean by higher maths? typically, everybody in my school takes intermediate algebra or precalculus in their sophomore year.

[Creepy-bg]

aren't higher maths a prerequisate to most of the sciences? they were back when I was in highschool. At least for Chemestry and Physics. Sheesh significant digits isn't even higher maths... that's almost remedial shit.

what do you mean by higher maths? typically, everybody in my school takes intermediate algebra or precalculus in their sophomore year.

Trig, Calculus, etc... I'm not sure what you mean when you say intermediate algebra. At my school (keep in mind this was for A track maths) Algebra I - freshman year, Geometry - Sophmore, Algebra 2/trig - Junior, calculus - senior. You couldn't take chemesty or physics without having at least done Algebra I I think. (I'm probably forgetting and getting that wrong, it was awhile ago, I thought physics needed more than that)

Either way, significant digits should have been covered by Algebra I IMO.

[marooned]

Re: Logos

[web:0fad3e5b0f]http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x20/Persaiys/blahblah.jpg[/web:0fad3e5b0f]

[marooned]

I didn't run into sig figs until college... I see them as something rather insignificant unless one is doing something important with them that they actually need to be remembered for (like some actual research, or a lab report, or a test)... otherwise, I don't seem to really care about them.

[Creepy-bg]

I didn't run into sig figs until college... I see them as something rather insignificant unless one is doing something important with them that they actually need to be remembered for (like some actual research, or a lab report, or a test)... otherwise, I don't seem to really care about them.

I agree but it's not that hard of a concept to grasp, ya know?

[aestrivex]

aren't higher maths a prerequisate to most of the sciences? they were back when I was in highschool. At least for Chemestry and Physics. Sheesh significant digits isn't even higher maths... that's almost remedial shit.

what do you mean by higher maths? typically, everybody in my school takes intermediate algebra or precalculus in their sophomore year.

Trig, Calculus, etc... I'm not sure what you mean when you say intermediate algebra. At my school (keep in mind this was for A track maths) Algebra I - freshman year, Geometry - Sophmore, Algebra 2/trig - Junior, calculus - senior. You couldn't take chemesty or physics without having at least done Algebra I I think. (I'm probably forgetting and getting that wrong, it was awhile ago, I thought physics needed more than that)

Either way, significant digits should have been covered by Algebra I IMO.

the typical progression.

algebra I=MQ1/2
geometry=MQ3/4
algebra II/trig=MQ5/6
precal
calculus

nearly everybody at my school has already taken MQ1/2 and starts with either MQ3 or MQ5. you do need algebra I to take chemistry and physics but not bio. the intro physics course, which is frankly bored me to tears for being easy as shit, requires a very limited knowledge of trigonometry but the way they teach it they give you the formula without requiring any thought (ie the normal force up the side of a hill = mgcosΘ; no knowledge of the reason why required) so you dont actually need to understand whats going on. much of the class is merely algebra.

[Creepy-bg]

aren't higher maths a prerequisate to most of the sciences? they were back when I was in highschool. At least for Chemestry and Physics. Sheesh significant digits isn't even higher maths... that's almost remedial shit.

what do you mean by higher maths? typically, everybody in my school takes intermediate algebra or precalculus in their sophomore year.

Trig, Calculus, etc... I'm not sure what you mean when you say intermediate algebra. At my school (keep in mind this was for A track maths) Algebra I - freshman year, Geometry - Sophmore, Algebra 2/trig - Junior, calculus - senior. You couldn't take chemesty or physics without having at least done Algebra I I think. (I'm probably forgetting and getting that wrong, it was awhile ago, I thought physics needed more than that)

Either way, significant digits should have been covered by Algebra I IMO.

the typical progression.

algebra I=MQ1/2
geometry=MQ3/4
algebra II/trig=MQ5/6
precal
calculus

nearly everybody at my school has already taken MQ1/2 and starts with either MQ3 or MQ5. you do need algebra I to take chemistry and physics but not bio. the intro physics course, which is frankly bored me to tears for being easy as shit, requires a very limited knowledge of trigonometry but the way they teach it they give you the formula without requiring any thought (ie the normal force up the side of a hill = mgcosΘ; no knowledge of the reason why required) so you dont actually need to understand whats going on. much of the class is merely algebra.

sounds pretty much the same as when I was in school...

[marooned]

I didn't run into sig figs until college... I see them as something rather insignificant unless one is doing something important with them that they actually need to be remembered for (like some actual research, or a lab report, or a test)... otherwise, I don't seem to really care about them.

I agree but it's not that hard of a concept to grasp, ya know?

Well, no, it's very simple... easy to learn, forget, re-learn, re-forget... ad infinitum.

[Logos]

Re: Logos

[web:9121755607]http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x20/Persaiys/blahblah.jpg[/web:9121755607]

That's about right. But that does not mean that I agree with his logic, just that this seems to be the logic which he uses.

The problem is that Phaedrus is making the assumption that the ABCD and ABCd are attempting to describe the same phenomenon, which is is not necessarily the case, which is why an ABCD in MBTI could always be a ABCz, AXCd, or even WXYd depending upon the characteristics ascribed to the functions.

[Phaedrus]

Logos has described my view correctly. This is also correct:

You believe there is some sort of essence of each of these 16 types that is roughly the same in both systems. So all tests (whether MBTI or not) and all descriptions (whether MBTI or Socionics) will eventually lead to that essence of what a person is. You would then not be focused so much on one system or the other, but more concerned with an idea that there are these 16 different structures for the human brain/personality and everyone has 1 of the 16. The systems (MBTI and Socionics) approximate what a person's internal structure (or essence) is, so once someone knows their particular essence or structure they should be the same in either system (as both systems are trying to get at the same thing only they differ somewhat in their method, or theory). If you see it this way, I can see that you might call it a "top down" approach.

And yes, it is a "top down" approach.

Logically, it is perfectly conceivable for someone to be a different type in each.

Only if you assume that a type is defined by the preference order of the functions and that the functions are the same in both models. If you define a type as I do (as an essential structure) it is inconceivable that you can be a different type in each. And besides that, it is logically impossible for someone to be a different type in each model if you define a type according to the criteria for the four dimensions, which are an essential part of Socionics, despite what Expat says. The four scales are identical, and to say that you are, for example, a J type in MBTT and a p type in Socionics is, in essence, a logical contradiction in terms of the meanings of the labels "J" and "p".

And if I were to go about arguing this, one reason people would likely start debating it is that I'd be getting at some notion I personally have about the types (I would have my own idea of them that somehow was compatible with both systems), and people would say "well it's great that you have this notion, but it isn't actually Socionics you're talking about."

People may, or may not, agree with my ABCD=ABCd thesis. But I am right about the things I say about the socionic types. It is definitely Socionics I am talking about unless something else is directly specified.

Really, Socionics does not need MBTI or references to MBTI (MBTI is a separate theory of personality, even if it's a similar one). Socionics can stand on its own (as can MBTI).

Of course. But MBTT is a false theory, Socionics is a true theory.

If one is trying to get at an all encompassing theory of personality then it might be relevant to look at both systems (among other things), but if one is just trying to understand Socionics, then it might be better to just look at it by itself without drawing MBTI into it.

No. That is a very narrow-minded and stupid attitude, and you would understand the socionic types much better if you didn't follow Expat's advice on this.

Either the systems are not entirely equivalent, which is why someone could be, say an XXXj in one and an XXXP in another; or the systems are equivalent in which case XXXj=XXXJ and XXXp=XXXP.

What do you mean by the word "equivalent" here? The types are the same, because they share the same essential structure in the brain. The systems are not the same, and you cannot use the theoretical framework in MBTT to talk about the types in Socionics.

If I had to go with one or the other explanation, I'd go with the former.

And that would be a mistake.

[Phaedrus]

The problem is that Phaedrus is making the assumption that the ABCD and ABCd are attempting to describe the same phenomenon, which is is not necessarily the case

Because the four scales are identical in both models, that is necessarily the case. They are describing the same type of behaviour, and they agree on what they observe.

[marooned]

But that does not mean that I agree with his logic, just that this seems to be the logic which he uses.

Yes. :-)

The problem is that Phaedrus is making the assumption that the ABCD and ABCd are attempting to describe the same phenomenon, which is is not necessarily the case, which is why an ABCD in MBTI could always be a ABCz, AXCd, or even WXYd depending upon the characteristics ascribed to the functions.

[marooned]

I believe I understand your view now, Phaedrus, at least in principle. I do not believe at this point that I know enough (in the concrete sense) to now know whether or not I agree with you, or which parts I agree with or disagree with. This is the point where more knowledge and reflection would be needed for me to have a solid opinion (rather than my ethereal "I feel like it's this..." or "it seems like..." etc.). This is a resolution sort of point, which I think was more important to me than whether or not I agreed.

[Phaedrus]

I believe I understand your view now, Phaedrus, at least in principle. I do not believe at this point that I know enough (in the concrete sense) to now know whether or not I agree with you, or which parts I agree with or disagree with. This is the point where more knowledge and reflection would be needed for me to have a solid opinion (rather than my ethereal "I feel like it's this..." or "it seems like..." etc.). This is a resolution sort of point, which I think was more important to me than whether or not I agreed.

I fully respect your view and attitude here. It is a very good starting point for further research and future insights.