[glam]

.

[aestrivex]

thank you for your keen eye for technicalities. it is truly overjoying to see people actually bantering about terminology. whenever i see such discussion, i think to myself, "gee, isn't this forum a wonderful harbor of discussion? should we use the three letter or four letter type codes? is it yielding/obstinate or compliant/obstinate?" so many questions, so little clarity. and now you have come out of the blue with your proclamation: "SOCIONICS TYPES ARE NOT PERSONALITY TYPES." and now there is clarity. and then there was light, and on the seventh day petals fell in petaluma; lewis, be dead.

[aestrivex]

ok, i guess i can see the distinction you're trying to make.

[munenori2]

I like this a lot. Mainly because I was under the auspices of that misconception for a while.

[hellothere]

but then we have to define personality and that is a tricky thing to do. I think your IM preferences/strengths are at least a part of what could be called your "personality".

eta: "personality" may mean different things to different people, and for some people the phenomena described (or explained?) by their IM preferences/strengths may make up a large part of what they consider to be their personality.

[munenori2]

but then we have to define personality and that is a tricky thing to do. I think your IM preferences/strengths are at least a part of what could be called your "personality".

eta: "personality" may mean different things to different people, and for some people the phenomena described (or explained?) by their IM preferences/strengths may make up a large part of what they consider to be their personality.

They're certainly a part, but not the whole shebang, so to speak. There are definitely differences between people of the same type. Personality seems to me more personal, more constricted. While there are a remarkable amount of similarities between people of the same type, so too are there differences (even to the point that identicals might disagree, even vehemently). We might possibly it up though and go for more precise defintions, so as to avoid the semantic differences that seem to throw so many discussions off.

[hellothere]

They're certainly a part, but not the whole shebang, so to speak. There are definitely differences between people of the same type. Personality seems to me more personal, more constricted. While there are a remarkable amount of similarities between people of the same type, so too are there differences (even to the point that identicals might disagree, even vehemently).

But then, even with typing systems which do aim to describe or explain "personality" (such as MBTT? Enneagram?), there will be differences between people of the same type, because everyone is different. So then this topic may as well be "personality is not the same as personality type"

[munenori2]

Well, it might be worth noting that I don't think personality type = socionics type in the sense that the latter = IM preferences and our disparate lives involve vastly different information from which to sift. However, maybe I'm just repeating myself?

Basically, we can work from the same apparatus and on the basis of our experience/inputs we can arrive at totally different ends of the spectrum.

[hellothere]

But can't you see how "how a person's intellect tends to perceive, process, and produce different kinds of information" could be seen as some to be part of "the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual"? Similarly, "how a person's intellect tends to perceive, process, and produce different kinds of information" could also influence "the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of the individual."

I understand your point of view, but I just think that "personality" is too loose a term to make such a definitive statement.

no. that's a completely different issue.

And yes, I realise it is, I was just responding to what munenori was saying about there being differences between people of the same socionics type - the same can be said of any typology, including those that are said to type personality.


I apologise if it seems I am derailing your thread glamourama - my intention was just to get some discussion going, perhaps as to why people seem to mistake (in your view) socionics type for personality type.

[hellothere]

Augusta seems to refer to "personality types" here:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ion_metabolism

I realise this is only a translation, but even still it serves to show that essentially this is an argument about words, about terminology.