I'm Leaning Towards What Phaedrus Thinks

[Ezra]

Yes, fuck off with you study chamber shit. But I'm beginning to think ABCD = ABCd; HOWEVER, not that ABCd = ABCD. These are saying different things. Put it this way; all ESTJs are LSEs, but not all LSEs are ESTJs.

I don't agree completely though; I haven't yet been fully convinced.

For example INFP = EII and INFJ = IEI doesn't quite work, because Expat's showed so. Nor do I think ENTJ = LIE.

However:

ESTJ = LSE
ISTP = SLI*
ISTJ = LSI*

I'm particularly confident in these two after having read about them. Those are the ones I'm almost certain of.

[Expat]

And you'll probably also find out that, generally speaking, ESFJ = ESE.

However, it's not that simple, either. Are you going by descriptions, dichotomies, or what?

[force my hand]

Someone mentioned (joked) recently that ABCD are actually the 16 types of Beta, and just as a simple, intuitive grasp it 'feels' right.

[Ezra]

And you'll probably also find out that, generally speaking, ESFJ = ESE.

However, it's not that simple, either. Are you going by descriptions, dichotomies, or what?

Just descriptions. Cheers for mentioning that actually, Expat. I'm focusing on descriptions alone. So maybe it differs from what Phaedrus thinks.

Also, that introduces another point. Functionally, the LSI and the ISTP are the same. Descriptively, they are very different. So it basically proves that the ISTP is not the SLI, because of the functional usage.

[Phaedrus]

Functionally, the LSI and the ISTP are the same. Descriptively, they are very different. So it basically proves that the ISTP is not the SLI, because of the functional usage.

Descriptively the SLI and the ISTP are the same, and descriptively the LSI and ISTJ are the same -- you are right about that, and no one can question that after having taken a close look at those types. The introverted sensing types fits the ABCD=ABCd hypothesis perfectly, according to the descriptions of their behaviour and attitudes (their observable characteristics).

But what that proves is not that they are different types functionally. Since the ISTP and the SLI are -- as a matter of fact -- the same empirical object, how can they have different functions (different brain structures)? Obviously they can't, so what it actually proves is that the WORDS/LABELS "Ti", "Si", "Te", "Se", etc. have different MEANINGS (= different language uses) in the two models, even though they are nevertheless REFERRING to the same thought processes (= the same brain structures in the same empirical object).

[Ezra]

Someone mentioned (joked) recently that ABCD are actually the 16 types of Beta, and just as a simple, intuitive grasp it 'feels' right.

That was Salawa. She was very accurate I think.

[Ezra]

But what that proves is not that they are different types functionally. Since the ISTP and the SLI are -- as a matter of fact -- the same empirical object, how can they have different functions (different brain structures)? Obviously they can't, so what it actually proves is that the WORDS/LABELS "Ti", "Si", "Te", "Se", etc. have different MEANINGS (= different language uses) in the two models, even though they are nevertheless REFERRING to the same thought processes (= the same brain structures in the same empirical object).

Interesting point. But have you read Ti, Si, Te and Se in socionics, and then in MBTT? Some are more similar than others. Descriptively, there are discrepancies i.e. MBTT Te is like a mixture of Se, Ti and Te. But more interesting is MBTT Si. It's actually very close to socionics Ti, and it seems as if just the name has been mucked up.

[force my hand]

But what that proves is not that they are different types functionally. Since the ISTP and the SLI are -- as a matter of fact -- the same empirical object, how can they have different functions (different brain structures)? Obviously they can't, so what it actually proves is that the WORDS/LABELS "Ti", "Si", "Te", "Se", etc. have different MEANINGS (= different language uses) in the two models, even though they are nevertheless REFERRING to the same thought processes (= the same brain structures in the same empirical object).

I'm trying to pinpoint where the difference lies. Is it the definitions themselves, or the fact that socionics seems more interested in the processes each function instigates as opposed to MBTT's (mainly) behavioural traits? It's a fine distinction, I agree, as behaviour stems from process, but socionics presents a much more subtle, and integrated picture.

(which is probably why I 'understood' MBTT easily but still have difficulty with socionics.)

[Phaedrus]

Interesting point. But have you read Ti, Si, Te and Se in socionics, and then in MBTT? Some are more similar than others.

Correct. The most different are probably Si in MBTT and Si in Socionics. But it doesn't matter, because they solve that "problem" by shifting focus on which function has which role in which place in the psyche. For example, when MBTT talks about some aspects of the Ti function in the INTP, a socionist would talk about the same aspects in relation to creative Te (I have tried to show that in a post a long time ago). And in MBTT they say that the INTP uses his Ne to observe the external world, whereas the socionists see that as a use of Ni.

But more interesting is MBTT Si. It's actually very close to socionics Ti, and it seems as if just the name has been mucked up.

Not exactly, but you have a point. An ESI will also identify pretty well with MBTT descriptions of Si.

[Ezra]

I'm trying to pinpoint where the difference lies. Is it the definitions themselves, or the fact that socionics seems more interested in the processes each function instigates as opposed to MBTT's (mainly) behavioural traits? It's a fine distinction, I agree, as behaviour stems from process, but socionics presents a much more subtle, and integrated picture.

(which is probably why I 'understood' MBTT easily but still have difficulty with socionics.)

Perhaps that while MBTT takes note of cognitive processes, they are seen in accordance with behaviour, whereas in socionics, they are seen as entities unto themselves.

[Expat]

Perhaps that while MBTT takes note of cognitive processes, they are seen in accordance with behaviour, whereas in socionics, they are seen as entities unto themselves.

I'm not sure that it's totally true. I think that MBTT more or less aims at doing the same thing as socionics; the problem is that MBTT makes wrong assumptions as to the connection between the cognitive processes and the person's behavior, at least in as far as the available descriptions are concerned.

[Phaedrus]

how standardized are the brains we are referring to? suppose typology is more an art of best fit - just trying to identify the most practical categorizations for approximately predicting behavior, as opposed to very-defined structures in the human brain. then you may get all sorts of variations in the "representative types" different typologies try to best-fit people to, because the validity of one variation over another may be only a matter of degree.

That is of course a possibility. In that case Socionics would be similar to the Enneagram -- a false theory that has some practical benefits while containing some (or rather many) true statements enabling us to understand things better. It is only an assumption that the socionic functions actually represent an essential structure existing out there in the brains of various people. We don't know for sure that that is true. I think that Socionics is the best theory so far (at least among the typologies), but it might not be totally correct, and there are some irritating anomalies that perhaps show that the theory of Socionics is not entirely consistent, meaning that it seemingly contains some contradictory assumptions. I am currently thinking about them, and maybe I will come back to that problem in a near future.

the MBTI ENTJ for example, doesn't refer to the same object as socionics ENTj - i don't think. specifically, i think the MBTI descriptions more so blend characteristics of the socionics Se and Ti into that type's described behavior.

For well-known reasons I disagree with that. MBTT ENTJ type descriptions are based on the real life behaviour of those people that get the test result "ENTJ" on MBTI tests. And of course the majority of those people must be ENTjs (LIEs), because the four scales are the same, and the test questions are nearly identical, and "ENTJ" is simply the most likely test result for LIEs. The ENTJ type descriptions might be slightly "polluded" by other types, but they are nevertheless primarily based on the behaviour and attitudes of LIEs. And since we don't have access to a full-proof testing method in Socionics either, the socionic type descriptions are also "polluded" to some extent.

[force my hand]

I'm not sure that it's totally true. I think that MBTT more or less aims at doing the same thing as socionics; the problem is that MBTT makes wrong assumptions as to the connection between the cognitive processes and the person's behavior, at least in as far as the available descriptions are concerned.

Do you mean with respect to MBTT's own interal consistency, or contrasted with the socionics function definitions?

[XoX]

But I'm beginning to think ABCD = ABCd; HOWEVER, not that ABCd = ABCD. These are saying different things. Put it this way; all ESTJs are LSEs, but not all LSEs are ESTJs.

Let's see...

Lets assume person X is an LSE. But you say that not all LSEs are ESTJs. Thus it is possible that person X is e.g. ENTJ. LSE and ENTJ.

But you also say that all ENTJs are LIEs. Thus person x must be a LIE. But he obviously cannot be LIE because he is LSE.

-> your assertion is untrue

What you are basically saying is that X=Y is true but Y=X is not true which doesn't make any sense really.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The beaches in Ecuador are higher than the mountains in Nepal.

[Phaedrus]

isn't there only a weak correlation between written socionics testing and socionics typing in practice? i remember easyTIM scoring less than 50% accuracy here.

I'm not sure about that. But I know that for example Lytov's test (which he talks about in his introduction to Socionics) is no different in the relevant respects. You would come out the same type if you took both his test and an MBTT test. And even if all the socionic tests are different from the MBTI tests, an true LIE would still most likely test as an ENTJ.

aren't some socionics dichotomy definitions (introversion and extroversion come to mind) based in part on function-related concepts like objects and fields that are unique to socionics?

No. The concepts introversion and extraversion in MBTT and Socionics are both based entirely on Jung -- in the same relevant way. There is no difference.

indeed - but suppose we see enough confusion between ENTJ and Se-base typings in practice (when we consider not only written testing, but also typing others by description, self-typing, VI, etc.) then it seems plausible think that there's a bias in MBTI description that is significantly large - and systematic (being polluted by some other type more so than others.)

I see no such confusion in practice. But some people, who don't take all aspects into consideration and only focus on SOME aspects of a certain type, can of course come to the wrong conclusions initially.

[aestrivex]

Let's see...

Lets assume person X is an LSE. But you say that not all LSEs are ESTJs. Thus it is possible that person X is e.g. ENTJ. LSE and ENTJ.

But you also say that all ENTJs are LIEs. Thus person x must be a LIE. But he obviously cannot be LIE because he is LSE.

-> your assertion is untrue

What you are basically saying is that X=Y is true but Y=X is not true which doesn't make any sense really.

why did it take 10 posts in to this thread for this rather obvious flaw to come up?

[Phaedrus]

And XoX is right. Every person in the world is a certain type in MBTT, and every person in the world is a certain type in Socionics. The set of people with an MBTT type is identical to the set of people with a type in Socionics, and that set of people consists of the whole world's population. There is no person left over when you have assigned the corresponding socionic type to every person with a certain MBTT type. The number of people with an MBTT type is exactly the same as the number of people with a socionic type. So, there can exist no person with a certain type in Socionics that is a different type in MBTT, if Ezra's assumption that ABCD=ABCd is correct.

[Expat]

Do you mean with respect to MBTT's own interal consistency, or contrasted with the socionics function definitions?

Both really -- regarding the internal consistency thing, something I have seen is this.

If you read MBTT theoretical explanations of their understandings of "Judging" and "Perceiving", I can agree that it's similar - or even equivalent, if you will - to Rationality and Irrationality.

However - whether in MBTI tests, or in MB descriptions - they expect "Judging" to manifest itself in traits like tidiness and punctuality, or in having some sort of longer-term goal to pursue. This is inconsistent both internally and in comparison to socionics. There is no logical reason - none at all - why the same individual might not be incredibly messy as to their persons, their desks, and cars, etc - and at the same time be incredibly punctual. For instance, SEIs are often very very tidy - because messiness disturbs them - and at the same time be very casual about being on time, because they don't care and may get distracted at the last moment.

Conversely, I am much more likely to be on time for my appointments - much more - than I am to be tidy.

The same for Introversion and Extroversion. Yes, theoretical explanations of MBTT introversion and extroversion may be one thing, but the fact is that in both descriptions and tests - those most often available - Extroversion is associated with having lots of casual acquaintances, disliking being alone, enjoying parties, liking to talk to strangers, etc. Introversion is associated with enjoying solitary walks, preferring more intimate circles of friends, etc etc.

Now some MBTT fans will say that this is a crude simplification of what MBTT manuals actually say. Even if so, the fact is that both MBTT descriptions, and tests, have become so contaminated by such concepts that "real-life" MBTT does contain them.

[force my hand]

If you read MBTT theoretical explanations of their understandings of "Judging" and "Perceiving", I can agree that it's similar - or even equivalent, if you will - to Rationality and Irrationality.

Agreed, and that is/was a personal sticking-point, especially when reading Rick's site.

For instance, SEIs are often very very tidy - because messiness disturbs them - and at the same time be very casual about being on time, because they don't care and may get distracted at the last moment.

At the risk of asking a stupid question, Socionics does indeed provide an adequate mechanism for this?

The same for Introversion and Extroversion. ... Even if so, the fact is that both MBTT descriptions, and tests, have become so contaminated by such concepts that "real-life" MBTT does contain them.

That initial simplicity is definitely an attractive quality, though as you write it's clear the system suffers for it.

Thanks for the reply!

[Expat]

At the risk of asking a stupid question, Socionics does indeed provide an adequate mechanism for this?

Of course! What does being tidy have to do with being punctual? Only if you assume that they are both connected to being "dutiful" or "responsible" or even "caring what others think", which is not necessarily the case.

Socionics does provide an adequate mechanism for this in that it goes for the why people behave like that. The thing with "tidiness" is very often connected to how the person reacts to . One SEI ex-boss of mine was very very messy in his office, his desk, even his car - yet he himself, in his appearance, was very tidy, and he liked his car to look good on the outside. When setting up an exhibition stand at a trade fair, he was very very meticulous and tidy. The thing is, his reacted differently to different environments in different situations -- in all situations, he was "tidy" or not depending on how he felt about it, which to an external observer is of course arbitrary. Nothing to do with a sense of duty or whatever.

The "punctuality" thing is more complicated. A stereotypical ESE trait is being late often - that is included in Stratievskaya's description and elsewhere. My ESE ex was like this. She was very tidy, at home at in her own person, and tried to be very organized with her agenda - yet she was usually about 15 min late for every appointment - to her distress. Why? Because she kept focusing on the matter at hand - - whether it was tidying up "just this one last thing that I just noticed", that she kept getting sidetracked from the longer-term concept that she'd have to be somewhere else. And no, is not about "planning" -- is what makes you think of things that are not connected to the immediate reality.

[force my hand]

Nice post!

Definitely has some things I can apply personally.

[Phaedrus]

if you consider what i said about assigning variables, i think what Ezra said can be consistent and leave room for that possibility.

Explain how.

[UDP]

Yes, fuck off with you study chamber shit. But I'm beginning to think ABCD = ABCd; HOWEVER, not that ABCd = ABCD. These are saying different things. Put it this way; all ESTJs are LSEs, but not all LSEs are ESTJs.

I don't agree completely though; I haven't yet been fully convinced.

For example INFP = EII and INFJ = IEI doesn't quite work, because Expat's showed so. Nor do I think ENTJ = LIE.

However:

ESTJ = LSE
ISTP = SLI*
ISTJ = LSI*

I'm particularly confident in these two after having read about them. Those are the ones I'm almost certain of.

Has it ever struck you that constantly trying to make these correlations could be relatively arbitrary?

[Phaedrus]

if all ESTJ are ESTj, but the converse isn't necessarily true - that's a similar thing as say, humans and mammals - or think of a smaller circle (ESTJ) completely enclosed by a larger circle (ESTj) in venn diagram.

to be more conventional, Ezra could have just replaced the "=" sign with the implication symbol ("=>").

Yes, of course, and I was predicting that you would say something like that. But that reasoning is based on the false assumption that the set of ESTjs might be bigger than the set of ESTJs when in fact it isn't (as I explained in my last post). There is no time dimension here either, so that an ESTJ might, hypothetically, "become" an ESTj at a later point in "history". The types are out there, existing as structures of the people of the world (according to both MBTT and Socionics), and the number of ESTJs is exactly the same as the number of ESTjs. So, if all ESTJs are ESTjs, then necessarily all ESTjs are ESTJs.

[Phaedrus]

i don't see an explaination for this. i see a lot of assertion. why must there be an equal number of ESTJ and ESTj? if that's not so, i don't think your conclusion is so, either.

Haven't I explained that already? At every point in history there exist an exact number of people in the world. Every single one of those people ARE exactly ONE type in MBTT and ONE type in Socionics. WHAT that type is in each model is determined by the essential nature of each person, probably their brain structures, even though that is not a necessary assumption. Isn't that perfectly clear? How can I explain this in more simple terms?

[Phaedrus]

but doesn't this take for granted precisely what i argued against taking for granted, in my second post?

No -- unless you assume that some people don't have any MBTT type at all. In that case it is possible that a certain person can be an ESTj in Socionics and no type in MBTT. But what are you basing such an assumption on? Almost everybody seems to assume that every person is typable, maybe with the exception of some disordered people, but they would be equally difficult to type in Socionics, so that is no solution to the problem. The Enneagram has the characteristics you discuss in your second post, but even so every single person in the world can probably be attributed exactly one Enneagram type. I can see no reasonable escape route for you here. You must admit that Ezra's suggestion is impossible.

[Phaedrus]

well every person can have a socionics type. and every person can have a remainder in the set {0, 1, 2, ..., 15} when you divide their birth year by 16. but there's probably negligible correlation between the remainder and socionics type.

perhaps the uncorrelation between MBTI and socionics isn't that extreme - i would expect some correlation between MBTI and socionics type. but i don't understand why it must be 1:1.

so my previous argument didn't assume any "untypables". sure we might best-fit everyone to a socionics type and a MBTI type - by why must these two different best-fits (MBTI and socionics) always correspond to each other systematically?

It must be a 1:1 correlation -- if Ezra's premise that ABCD=ABCd is true, and the premise that every single human being in the world has exactly one, and only one, type in Socionics and MBTT is also true. I honestly don't understand why you don't understand this argument. I wouldn't think that was possible. It's simple logic.

i'm not really trying to "escape" anything at the moment. i'm honestly boggled by your latest claim and honestly trying to figure it out why.

Perhaps someone else can explain to me why you don't see it? I don't know what to say.

[Ezra]

Let's see...

Lets assume person X is an LSE. But you say that not all LSEs are ESTJs. Thus it is possible that person X is e.g. ENTJ. LSE and ENTJ.

But you also say that all ENTJs are LIEs. Thus person x must be a LIE. But he obviously cannot be LIE because he is LSE.

-> your assertion is untrue

What you are basically saying is that X=Y is true but Y=X is not true which doesn't make any sense really.

Okay, you win.

[Ezra]

Has it ever struck you that constantly trying to make these correlations could be relatively arbitrary?

Read my reply to Logos' thread in General.