Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 62

Thread: Phaedrus' Ideas and More Improvements in Socionics

  1. #1
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Phaedrus' Ideas and More Improvements in Socionics

    A lot of people around here don't like Phaedrus' ideas. I would suppose that this has more to do with the way he promotes his ideas than the ideas themselves. I haven't been able to find a thread that gets to the core of the issue, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that he promotes the notion that MBTI = socionics = Keirsey typing. I'm not going to say that it's true, but I can see how someone could come up with this idea. Socionics is not rigorously defined. The interpretation of how socionics should be tested at www.socionics.com (which is basically testing the four main dichotomies) is remarkably similar to the MBTI and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Therefore, if you buy into socionics.com's conception or the idea that the four dichotomies are the main determinant of type, then they all could be viewed as the same.

    As I said, socionics is not rigorously defined. Someone has to come up with a standard method of typing people. This is an advantage that the MBTI has over socionics. If you have no emphasis on what parts of the theory are essential and you have no method of typing people, then everyone has a different conception of what comprises socionics, and everyone will be typing people differently. The theory is complex enough that few could fit every aspect of it. Therefore, if someone were to come up with some standards, there would be less confusion, and it would be much easier to type people. Ideally, the best way to type people would be to figure out what the essential aspects of typing someone are, while remaining true to the theory, and then coming up with a test that gives fairly reliable results. It might seem like a daunting task, but what about a test that measures each informational element and types people based on their two most used and compatible functions? Sure, there's a lot more to being an INTp than simply having , but for testing purposes, is it really necessary to get much more complicated than that? The only serious drawback that I could see would be the wording of the questions. There are so many subtypes of people who have, for example, dominant , that it can be difficult to generate questions that will correctly determine most dominant types. However, this doesn't mean that it could never be done.

    As for Phaedrus' ideas, if a test similar to my conception were to turn out to be a valid measure, then Phaedrus' notion would seem less credible. But who knows, perhaps we could never be able to come up with an accurate test, and if that's the case, we could never say for certain whether Phaedrus is truly right or wrong. (It seems wrong to me, but without aspects of the theory that we consider to be critical, we could never know. And if you do believe there to be central parts to the theory, then how could, for example, Wikisocion and socionics.com vary so much?)

    Tell me what you think.

    Jason

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    His main argument is that they SHOULD match. He gets confused into thinking that they do match as the creators of either theory have defined them...

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionists in general indirectly agree that the types are the same in all three models according to the four dichotomies. Filatova surely assumes that they are the same in her book on Socionics, Lytov does not deny it, Ganin does not deny it either, and there is no strong reason whatsoever presented anywhere at any time by anyone to assume that the types are not the same according to the ABCD=ABCd thesis.

    According to how the types are defined in Socionics (and in MBTT and Keirsey) the types are also necessarily the same, regardless of how many socionists realize that fact or not. And besides the fact that the types must be the same, the types are also described as very similar in behaviours and attitudes when we compare type descriptions. In addition to that, most people test and identify as the same type in Socionics and MBTT. And if we look at real life examples of each type, the types fit the ABCD=ABCd thesis perfectly according to V.I.

    How much more evidence to you people really need in order to be convinced?

  4. #4
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There actually ARE strict definitions for the core terms used in Socionics, and they do not always coincide ( indeed, they are are sometimes completely at odds) with the vagueries provided by MBTI and Keirsey. For example MBTI says that ISFJ and ISTJ are dominant in Introverted Sensing, which is quite clearly not the case in Socionics. True, this is merely a terminological difference, and may not be indicative of the underlying truth of what those types represent, but if one were to examine, say, the typical MBTT INTJ portrait, it becomes quite apparent that the type being discussed most likely does not have Extroverted Sensing, as defined by Socionics, in the weakest place.

    "Indirectly agree," lmfao.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  5. #5
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,931
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    There was a study where the 16 Keirsey type descriptions were sent to 108 Socionists, who then read them all and then identified which Socionics type best matched each description.

    The results are on this page, about half down and under the heading 'Method 3'.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    There actually ARE strict definitions for the core terms used in Socionics, and they do not always coincide ( indeed, they are are sometimes completely at odds) with the vagueries provided by MBTI and Keirsey.
    That is an irrelevant comment, because the types can be the same (and they are) despite the terms used to talk about the types are different in the three models. That the terms are different is exactly what we should expect (and no one has disputed it) since their theoretical explanations of the types are different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    For example MBTI says that ISFJ and ISTJ are dominant in Introverted Sensing, which is quite clearly not the case in Socionics.
    Introverted Sensing (Si) is a completely different function from in Socionics. They have almost nothing at all to do with each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    True, this is merely a terminological difference, and may not be indicative of the underlying truth of what those types represent, but if one were to examine, say, the typical MBTT INTJ portrait, it becomes quite apparent that the type being discussed most likely does not have Extroverted Sensing, as defined by Socionics, in the weakest place.
    That is also an irrelevant comment, because everybody knows that the ordering of the functions (which in themselvers are also different) is different in the theoretical explanations of the types. And the theoretical explanations of the types are totally irrelevant for the truth ABCD=ABCd thesis.

  7. #7
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol

    I'm outa here. This is already going nowhere.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    lol

    I'm outa here. This is already going nowhere.
    The truth of the ABCD=ABCd thesis is already established. There is nothing to discuss. People should just accept it so that we can move on to more imoportant issues.

  9. #9
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    According to how the types are defined in Socionics (and in MBTT and Keirsey) the types are also necessarily the same, regardless of how many socionists realize that fact or not.
    Why is it that the types "must" be the same?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    And besides the fact that the types must be the same, the types are also described as very similar in behaviours and attitudes when we compare type descriptions.
    But not all of them are. I agree that most of the introverted types with sensing sound the same, but the INTj descriptions don't sound much like the MBTI INTJ descriptions. For example, socionics.com says that INTjs lack self-confidence. This is exactly opposite of what typelogic.com says about INTJs. In other words, I relate to most INTj descriptions but not most INTJ descriptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    In addition to that, most people test and identify as the same type in Socionics and MBTT.
    But only on tests similar to the one on socionics.com. I've read somewhere that there is only a 30% correlation between the typings of the two systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    And if we look at real life examples of each type, the types fit the ABCD=ABCd thesis perfectly according to V.I.
    I haven't seen any information about the visual identification of MBTI types. What evidence do you have that they are the same?

    Honestly though, I can see how someone could say that some MBTI interpretation = some Keirsey interpretation = some socionics interpretation. I can't see how that equation works if we say replace the word "some" with the words "most every." In other words, they are all similar, but in order to say that they are all exactly the same, we would have to redefine a lot of the ideas in each system. That's fine if that's your interpretation of it. But if you're saying that they are exactly the same without any restructuring, then it's a lot harder to see how.

    Jason

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Why is it that the types "must" be the same?
    How can you not understand this? The types are defined by the four dichotomies, and the four dichotomies are the same in all three models. The functions are not the same, so they are irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    But not all of them are.
    Wrong. All of the types are described as very similar.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    I agree that most of the introverted types with sensing sound the same, but the INTj descriptions don't sound much like the MBTI INTJ descriptions. For example, socionics.com says that INTjs lack self-confidence. This is exactly opposite of what typelogic.com says about INTJs.
    You are right about that detail in the type descriptions, but it is only a minor detail after all, and you have to look at the overall picture that emerges when you have read tons of type descriptions from Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey. There is no other type than the INTj that is closer to how INTJs are described in MBTT and Keirsey.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    In other words, I relate to most INTj descriptions but not most INTJ descriptions.
    Is there any other type(s) in MBTT (and/or Keirsey) that fit you clearly better than INTJ?

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    But only on tests similar to the one on socionics.com. I've read somewhere that there is only a 30% correlation between the typings of the two systems.
    Yes, and that's pure bullshit. Don't pay any attention to it, because it is irrelevant. They are not talking about the real types.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    I haven't seen any information about the visual identification of MBTI types. What evidence do you have that they are the same?
    My own observations of real life people. Everything fits perfectly.

  11. #11
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Someone has to come up with a standard method of typing people. This is an advantage that the MBTI has over socionics.
    That depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your purpose is simply to find the person's type in a quick and simple manner, than MBTI is better. But the question is, what do you actually do with that information. Those who prefer socionics to MBTI (or Myers-Briggs typology generally) usually do so because they think that you can do a lot more with the accurate socionics type, however difficult it may be to find it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    If you have no emphasis on what parts of the theory are essential and you have no method of typing people, then everyone has a different conception of what comprises socionics, and everyone will be typing people differently.
    That's one reason why people come to this forum, and why some of us try to meet personally. Not necessarily to reach agreement in everything, but to understand what each other is talking about, so hopefully we won't have extreme differences when typing people. But, in the end, each person must decide whether an individual typing makes sense or not.



    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Therefore, if someone were to come up with some standards, there would be less confusion, and it would be much easier to type people.
    There is no "royal road to socionics", I'm afraid. If you make it easier, you risk making it less accurate. My view anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Ideally, the best way to type people would be to figure out what the essential aspects of typing someone are, while remaining true to the theory, and then coming up with a test that gives fairly reliable results. It might seem like a daunting task, but what about a test that measures each informational element and types people based on their two most used and compatible functions? Sure, there's a lot more to being an INTp than simply having , but for testing purposes, is it really necessary to get much more complicated than that? The only serious drawback that I could see would be the wording of the questions. There are so many subtypes of people who have, for example, dominant , that it can be difficult to generate questions that will correctly determine most dominant types. However, this doesn't mean that it could never be done.
    There have been many attempts. You feel like trying as well, go ahead.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    And if you do believe there to be central parts to the theory, then how could, for example, Wikisocion and socionics.com vary so much?)
    Well, where do they disagree in the "central" parts?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    According to Keirseys' "Please understand me" guide to typology, the two types that any type is supposed to be primarily attracted to are -- what under a perfect correlation with socionics would be -- the conflictor and the supervisor/supervisee that has sensing/intuiting in common with the type.

    So there.

  13. #13
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    According to Keirseys' "Please understand me" guide to typology, the two types that any type is supposed to be primarily attracted to are -- what under a perfect correlation with socionics would be -- the conflictor and the supervisor/supervisee that has sensing/intuiting in common with the type.

    So there.
    So there what?

    The reality is these relations work well from a US Gamma productive viewpoint. From an outsider looking in, US marriages, although perhaps materialistically productive, they certainly seem to be unhappy unisons.

    The only thing you are proving more or less is that socionics is superior for intertype relations, but you already agree with that so I take it you agree with Phaedrus then?

  14. #14
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    That depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your purpose is simply to find the person's type in a quick and simple manner, than MBTI is better. But the question is, what do you actually do with that information. Those who prefer socionics to MBTI (or Myers-Briggs typology generally) usually do so because they think that you can do a lot more with the accurate socionics type, however difficult it may be to find it.
    ...
    That's one reason why people come to this forum, and why some of us try to meet personally. Not necessarily to reach agreement in everything, but to understand what each other is talking about, so hopefully we won't have extreme differences when typing people. But, in the end, each person must decide whether an individual typing makes sense or not.
    ...
    There is no "royal road to socionics", I'm afraid. If you make it easier, you risk making it less accurate. My view anyway.
    This is very accurate, IMO... Personally, it's taken me several years to grasp to Socionics to the degree that I have--and I still have a ways to go... Several more years, I imagine. (Hell, it took me almost two years to narrow down my type to XNFp!)

    Typing ppl with Myers-Briggs or Keirsey is very simplistic compared with Socionics' comparable process... Ultimately though, as Expat said well, one can know much more about oneself, others, one's relationships with others, etc. by knowing Socionics... Thus, I've found it a rewarding process to learn how to type using Socionics--more rewarding than MBTI and Keirsey, systems that seem superficial by comparison.

    Here's an example where XXXX (other theories) does not equal XXXx (Socionics.) Several days ago, I was attempting to type Michael Jordan using Socionics. Keirsey and MBTI practitioners have typed Jordan ISTp... This would seem to make sense, right? After all, Jordan seems quiet, which is a good indicator or Introversion in the aforementioned systems... After watching numerous interviews with Jordan, however, it became clear to me that he does not possess 'Delta values.' Jordan projects Se more than anything else, and responds much more to Fe than Fi. (It's been noted that Jordan despised former #1 pick Kwame Brown's--who is certainly ISTp--for his perceived lack of passion and unresponsiveness to Fe motivation.) That's not to say that Keirsey's or MBTI's typing of Jordan were way off--clearly, Jordan is XSTx... He's just not a Delta XSTx. IMO, the evidence points to beta XSTx.

    As to consensus typings in Socionics, I agree with you--I wish that there could be more of them here on this forum. To be honest though, since Socionics takes such a long time to learn, and is complicated, the lack of consensus here makes sense. After all, most ppl here are in the process of figuring out the system themselves... There are very few experts, although some ppl are well on their way...

    Let's keep in mind that this theory is relatively new to English-speakers... I believe that there will be more consensus in the future, as ppl learn the ins-and-outs of the theory...

    I believe that it could be of great help if those who were 100% confident of certain typings could assemble a benchmark list, so that newcomers to Socionics could associate the Socionics functions about which they'll read to visuals, and sounds, etc. (In other words, we could compile interviews/videos of ppl.)

    I believe that typing ppl strictly by the Jungian foundation, or by societal role leads to many mis-typings in Socionics. Those sorts of typings are fine for the other theories, which describe superficial characteristics more than anything... But for Socionics, which describes ppl's inner-motivations and relationships, one must learn the functions... And that takes time, for better or worse.

  15. #15
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu View Post
    I believe that it could be of great help if those who were 100% confident of certain typings could assemble a benchmark list, so that newcomers to Socionics could associate the Socionics functions about which they'll read to visuals, and sounds, etc. (In other words, we could compile interviews/videos of ppl.)
    I am not 100% confident of any typing. But there is already something like that in Rick's sites and in the wiki's list of celebrities.

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu View Post
    I believe that typing ppl strictly by the Jungian foundation, or by societal role leads to many mis-typings in Socionics. Those sorts of typings are fine for the other theories, which describe superficial characteristics more than anything... But for Socionics, which describes ppl's inner-motivations and relationships, one must learn the functions... And that takes time, for better or worse.
    Yes, but some people aren't willing to accept that.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  16. #16
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu View Post
    Here's an example where XXXX (other theories) does not equal XXXx (Socionics.) Several days ago, I was attempting to type Michael Jordan using Socionics. Keirsey and MBTI practitioners have typed Jordan ISTp... This would seem to make sense, right? After all, Jordan seems quiet, which is a good indicator or Introversion in the aforementioned systems... After watching numerous interviews with Jordan, however, it became clear to me that he does not possess 'Delta values.' Jordan projects Se more than anything else, and responds much more to Fe than Fi. (It's been noted that Jordan despised former #1 pick Kwame Brown's--who is certainly ISTp--for his perceived lack of passion and unresponsiveness to Fe motivation.) That's not to say that Keirsey's or MBTI's typing of Jordan were way off--clearly, Jordan is XSTx... He's just not a Delta XSTx. IMO, the evidence points to beta XSTx.
    I know nothing about Jordan or Brown, but your reasoning seems spot on to me.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  17. #17
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    I am not 100% confident of any typing. But there is already something like that in Rick's sites and in the wiki's list of celebrities.
    Yup, that's true... Maybe I should concentrate on putting up some typings on wikisocion. (I need to learn how to do it now, haha)

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Yes, but some people aren't willing to accept that.
    It's true... I'm not sure exactly how you type ppl, but I've noticed that I often agree with your typings, and the reasoning behind them... When I first came to Socionics, I believe that I would've doubted many of your typings b/c they'd have seemed counter-intuitive to me.

    For example, I remember a particular thread about American presidents and G.W. Bush. In it, some ppl were arguing that Bush was an extroverted type because he seemed gregarious, and a perceiving type b/c he seemed pretty easy-going--I remember thinking something along the lines of: "how can Bush be an introverted type? He's always talking with ppl and joking..."

    If I was typing him using just Jungian foundation, I would type Bush as EXXx. However, after learning more about Socionics, I realized that extroversion (in the most frequently used sense) was not a fool-proof indicator of a Socionics extroverted leading function. So re: G.W. Bush: the functions that he manifests most (i.e. are most noticeable) are Fi and Se... His personal values--not the values of the American presidency, nor his administration's policies--but his personal values are Gamma values... In Socionics, I'm pretty sure that he's ISFj. (Aside: Bush Sr, who arguably seems more of an introverted person than his son, in Socionics, has an extroverted leading function.)

    If I remember correctly, you were the voice in the wilderness arguing for Bush as ISFj--and at the time I thought, "no." lol

    But yeah, essentially what I'm trying to say is that I agree with how you seem to go about typing ppl.

  18. #18
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu View Post
    but his personal values are Gamma values... In Socionics, I'm pretty sure that he's ISFj. (Aside: Bush Sr, who arguably seems more of an introverted person than his son, in Socionics, has an extroverted leading function.)

    If I remember correctly, you were the voice in the wilderness arguing for Bush as ISFj--and at the time I thought, "no." lol
    I don't remember ever seriously suggesting that Bush was ISFj; if I did, I don't know what I was thinking.

    My present view, also after reading The Bush Tragedy by Jacob Weisberg, is:

    President George W. Bush - ENFj
    former president Bush - ESTj
    Dick Cheney - ENTj
    Condolleezza Rice - ISFj
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  19. #19
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    I don't remember ever seriously suggesting that Bush was ISFj; if I did, I don't know what I was thinking.

    My present view, also after reading The Bush Tragedy by Jacob Weisberg, is:

    President George W. Bush - ENFj
    former president Bush - ESTj
    Dick Cheney - ENTj
    Condolleezza Rice - ISFj
    Hmm... Yeah, I guess that wasn't you, lol.

    I admit, I cannot currently see G.W. Bush as ENFj--but then again, I haven't read the book... I believe that he might play a ENFj role, i.e. the cowboy thing... It's very clear to me that he values Se rather than Si... The problem with a ISFj typing, for me, has been that he seems too aggressive--I admit, I cannot reconcile that... To be honest, I've never even thought about ENFj for him... I'm interested to hear why you think he might be that type, but maybe this thread isn't the best place for it.

    As to the rest of them: I have Cheney as ESTp, (obviously values Se; I cannot see him valuing Fi.) Former Pres. Bush as ESTj, (we agree there.) Not sure about Condi Rice.

    Consensuses are very hard to reach, indeed, lol

    EDIT: Are there other types that you've considered for G.W. Bush, aside from ENFj? I just watched several interviews, including two one-on-ones, and you're right, it's pretty clear that his focus is more on Fe than Fi. Se>Si too... So that leaves only a limited number from which to choose... The problem with a ENFj typing, as I see it, is that he doesn't seem particularly open, or apprehensive, or anxious... Or even well-prepared for future events, (even in conversation.) In other words, his Ni doesn't seem to be working very well, hehe, at least from what I've seen--for a ENFj, that is... This is really interesting to me though. I'm interested to hear your reasoning.
    Last edited by JuJu; 06-16-2008 at 03:38 AM.

  20. #20
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    That depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your purpose is simply to find the person's type in a quick and simple manner, than MBTI is better. But the question is, what do you actually do with that information. Those who prefer socionics to MBTI (or Myers-Briggs typology generally) usually do so because they think that you can do a lot more with the accurate socionics type, however difficult it may be to find it.
    The problem isn't just that it's difficult to find, it's almost impossible to find. I've rarely seen any group of people come to a consensus about someone's type. The reason for this is because everyone is focusing on different aspects of the theory that they consider to be most important. If someone were to evaluate what aspects lead to the most accurate typings, then we would know where to look.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    There is no "royal road to socionics", I'm afraid. If you make it easier, you risk making it less accurate. My view anyway.
    I didn't say that it has to be easy. Don't you think that some methods of typing yield more accurate results than others? If we were to crystallize these accurate methods and come up with some objective way of doing it, then there would be less confusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    There have been many attempts. You feel like trying as well, go ahead.
    I never said that I felt like trying. I'm simply not creative enough to come up with good test questions. But I think that the approach that I've mentioned would be a good start for someone who does have the ability to come up with them.

    EDIT: Another possible approach would be to come up with several descriptions of each type, each about two paragraphs long. The testee could then rate each description, based on how much it fits them. Also, if a person gives a description a perfect score, then that score should be given more weight, and the approximate best weighting would be determined by testing the instrument against those who have known types. The type with the highest score would be the result. I think this would be quite effective, but somewhat difficult to create.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Well, where do they disagree in the "central" parts?
    I'm not going to bother searching to find out where exactly, but I know that a lot of people around here don't consider socionics.com to be a good source of information, while they do consider Wikisocion to be good. I don't see how this would be possible if they both agreed on most things.

    Jason
    Last edited by jason_m; 06-16-2008 at 07:15 AM.

  21. #21
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    How can you not understand this?
    How could you think that this is easy to see when most people do not agree with you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    The types are defined by the four dichotomies, and the four dichotomies are the same in all three models. The functions are not the same, so they are irrelevant.
    But not all types are defined by the four dicotomies. I will agree that this is so in with the MBTI and Keirsey, but socionics has no one way of defining the types. You could define them by the dichotomies, by the functions, by visual identification, by their relationships with others, etc. None of these features have officially been given precedence over the other, and no standard method of typing has been given. Hence, the confusion I stated in the original post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Wrong. All of the types are described as very similar.
    We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    You are right about that detail in the type descriptions, but it is only a minor detail after all, and you have to look at the overall picture that emerges when you have read tons of type descriptions from Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey. There is no other type than the INTj that is closer to how INTJs are described in MBTT and Keirsey.
    I don't know about this. Keirsey's descriptions are kind of vague, but I think that the INTP description in the MBTI sounds closer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Is there any other type(s) in MBTT (and/or Keirsey) that fit you clearly better than INTJ?
    In the MBTI, I identify with most INTP descriptions, some INFJ descriptions, and some INFP descriptions. However, I don't identify with the socionics INTp descriptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Yes, and that's pure bullshit. Don't pay any attention to it, because it is irrelevant. They are not talking about the real types.
    So you're saying that this is your own interpretation of socionics, not the general interpretation that most others use? If that's the case, I cannot argue with you, since, as I said, there is no official way of determining the types.

    Jason

  22. #22
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    According to Keirseys' "Please understand me" guide to typology, the two types that any type is supposed to be primarily attracted to are -- what under a perfect correlation with socionics would be -- the conflictor and the supervisor/supervisee that has sensing/intuiting in common with the type.

    So there.
    It's interesting. I'm more attracted to types that aren't my dual, but I find that I would probably get along best with my dual. I'm not sure what socionics is saying exactly. I don't know if you're supposed to be attracted to your dual, or that you would find them to be a sort of "soulmate."

    Jason

  23. #23
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    It's interesting. I'm more attracted to types that aren't my dual, but I find that I would probably get along best with my dual. I'm not sure what socionics is saying exactly. I don't know if you're supposed to be attracted to your dual, or that you would find them to be a sort of "soulmate."

    Jason
    Rick's got a good description of duality on his site, socionics.us. (Dunno if you've seen that.)

    I agree that Socionics.com has some shaky parts, especially the celebrity typings and the VI thingy, (both often way off.) Some of the descriptions are pretty good, but yeah, I find Wikisocion's info better in general. That is to say, the info that's there--the IEE description is only half done, and some inter-type relations have overly pithy descriptions.

    It is hard to get a consensus around here for exactly the reasons that you're addressing... I appreciate that you're trying to get to the bottom of it. I've always chalked it up to varying levels of understanding--but it's true, and Expat can speak to this I believe, even among Socionists, there are disputes regarding how to type. Awhile ago, Expat brought up an example regarding the typing of JFK that shocked me, i.e. some Russian Socionists typed him by how he 'embodied' his societal role as president (ENTp--in their opinion, the ideal American man--please correct me if I'm wrong, Expat,) not by his personal attributes (ENFj.) I'd argue that typing a 'role' this kinda defeats the point of typing a 'person...' But yeah, these differences of opinion exist, even among ppl who've been doing it for years.

    I don't believe that there are many ppl here on this forum who type by role, fwiw.

  24. #24
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    The problem isn't just that it's difficult to find, it's almost impossible to find. I've rarely seen any group of people come to a consensus about someone's type. The reason for this is because everyone is focusing on different aspects of the theory that they consider to be most important. If someone were to evaluate what aspects lead to the most accurate typings, then we would know where to look.
    Personally I don't think that reaching a consensus about anyone's type is that important; I think it's more important that we understand where everyone is coming from for their typings.

    Also, we're talking about typing each other online, or typing celebrities. When people here actually meet, discussions on each other's types are much clearer.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post

    EDIT: Another possible approach would be to come up with several descriptions of each type, each about two paragraphs long. The testee could then rate each description, based on how much it fits them. Also, if a person gives a description a perfect score, then that score should be given more weight, and the approximate best weighting would be determined by testing the instrument against those who have known types. The type with the highest score would be the result. I think this would be quite effective, but somewhat difficult to create.
    Something like that has been tried, see for instance Hugo's test here:


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

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I'm not going to bother searching to find out where exactly, but I know that a lot of people around here don't consider socionics.com to be a good source of information, while they do consider Wikisocion to be good. I don't see how this would be possible if they both agreed on most things.
    It depends on what you're talking about. I think that most people here would agree that socionics.com is useful as a first introduction to socionics, due to its type descriptions (I think that the +/- ones are particularly good), the descriptions of the relationships, and the general ideas. I don't think anyone would say that those bits are wrong.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  25. #25
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu View Post
    but it's true, and Expat can speak to this I believe, even among Socionists, there are disputes regarding how to type. Awhile ago, Expat brought up an example regarding the typing of JFK that shocked me, i.e. some Russian Socionists typed him by how he 'embodied' his societal role as president (ENTp--in their opinion, the ideal American man--please correct me if I'm wrong, Expat,) not by his personal attributes (ENFj.) I'd argue that typing a 'role' this kinda defeats the point of typing a 'person...' But yeah, these differences of opinion exist, even among ppl who've been doing it for years.
    The "consensus" typing for JFK among the Russians is ENTj (not ENTp). At least one site (socionics.org) also types his wife Jackie as ISFj.

    Talking about historical typings with Igor Weisband, one of the earliest socionists, he told me that at least he, personally, typed Kennedy as ENTj because that was the "American society" type, and Kennedy seemed to personify the ideal American man; so, ergo, Kennedy's own type was ENTj -- And I guess that the same logic (not by Weisband, perhaps) deduced that since they seemed to be an "ideal couple", then Jackie was ISFj (the possibility that that "ideal" appearance was intentional does not seem to have occurred to them).

    Likewise, he typed Oliver Cromwell as ENTp for similar reasons - he seemed to think that anyone introduducing supposedly "revolutionary ideas" is ENTp (his own type, by the way).

    I obviously disagree with this approach; it may be useful to give a first hunch, but it must be checked against individual evidence. I've read more on JFK than I probably should have, and to me it's very easy to make the case of ENFj for him; and his wife was either ESFj or ENFj herself.

    Now, I don't know how many Russian socionists use this kind of reasoning, but I daresay some of them do. On the other hand, some published Russian articles on historical figures's types - as on Napoleon, for instance - do show them using specific evidence.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  26. #26
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    It's interesting. I'm more attracted to types that aren't my dual, but I find that I would probably get along best with my dual. I'm not sure what socionics is saying exactly. I don't know if you're supposed to be attracted to your dual, or that you would find them to be a sort of "soulmate."
    You can be "attracted" to a person, or to a type, for many reasons. In principle, what socionics says is that persons of your dual type are those with whom a close, longer-term relationship is the most favorable, comfortable, successful, etc - all other things being equal.

    Other texts say that, indeed, you are attracted to your dual the moment you meet them -- well, I don't know that that's always the case.

    Looking back at my own life, I have seen the pattern that I used to be attracted to, and inclined to start relationships with, ENFjs, which was sort of counter-productive.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    How could you think that this is easy to see when most people do not agree with you?
    Because my arguments are conclusive. Don't you realize that? The four díchotomies are the same in all three models, god damn it! That many people don't see it is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    But not all types are defined by the four dicotomies.
    Wrong. They are. How can you be so blind? It's incredible.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    I will agree that this is so in with the MBTI and Keirsey, but socionics has no one way of defining the types. You could define them by the dichotomies, by the functions, by visual identification, by their relationships with others, etc.
    Irrelevant. The four dichotomies is one way of defining the socionic types, and since it is, we should focus on exactly that aspect of the types, because it allows us to see that the ABCD=ABCd thesis is necessarily true.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    None of these features have officially been given precedence over the other, and no standard method of typing has been given.
    Irrelevant. All of these ways of defining the types are equally valid as long as they correctly demarcate the boundaries between the different types. You think that you can dismiss one way of defining the types if it suits you. But you are wrong. Your type is necessarily defined by the four dichotomies, and they can never ever contradict the other aspects of your type. If they do, you are mistyped.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
    No. You just have to accept what I say as the objective truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    I don't know about this. Keirsey's descriptions are kind of vague, but I think that the INTP description in the MBTI sounds closer.
    Only if you focus on the functions, which I have forbidden you to focus on. If you compare how their behaviours and attitudes are described, you will have to agree that I am right. I have also explained in detail why the INTP is the same type as the INTp in various posts on this forum. I hate to have to repeat this truth over and over again. INTPs are Objectivists, INTJs are Subjectivists (Reinin dichotomies) -- both in MBTT and Socionics. That fact is in itself enough (but there are lots of other arguments too of course) to establish that I am right about these two types.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    In the MBTI, I identify with most INTP descriptions, some INFJ descriptions, and some INFP descriptions. However, I don't identify with the socionics INTp descriptions.
    That's because you are only a beginner. Study them more. Compare Stratiyevskaya's and Filatova's type descriptions with the MBTT ones. And the fact that you identify with the INTP descriptions means that you probably can't read type descriptions correctly and that you don't understand them, because, as we all agree on, your correct MBTT type is most likely not INTP, is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    So you're saying that this is your own interpretation of socionics, not the general interpretation that most others use? If that's the case, I cannot argue with you, since, as I said, there is no official way of determining the types.
    In that case I must believe that you are an idiot. How can you brainwash yourself with such a stupid argument? The types can be observed -- if you open your eyes for once.

  28. #28
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Because my arguments are conclusive. Don't you realize that? The four díchotomies are the same in all three models, god damn it! That many people don't see it is irrelevant.


    Wrong. They are. How can you be so blind? It's incredible.


    Irrelevant. The four dichotomies is one way of defining the socionic types, and since it is, we should focus on exactly that aspect of the types, because it allows us to see that the ABCD=ABCd thesis is necessarily true.


    Irrelevant. All of these ways of defining the types are equally valid as long as they correctly demarcate the boundaries between the different types. You think that you can dismiss one way of defining the types if it suits you. But you are wrong. Your type is necessarily defined by the four dichotomies, and they can never ever contradict the other aspects of your type. If they do, you are mistyped.


    No. You just have to accept what I say as the objective truth.


    Only if you focus on the functions, which I have forbidden you to focus on. If you compare how their behaviours and attitudes are described, you will have to agree that I am right. I have also explained in detail why the INTP is the same type as the INTp in various posts on this forum. I hate to have to repeat this truth over and over again. INTPs are Objectivists, INTJs are Subjectivists (Reinin dichotomies) -- both in MBTT and Socionics. That fact is in itself enough (but there are lots of other arguments too of course) to establish that I am right about these two types.


    That's because you are only a beginner. Study them more. Compare Stratiyevskaya's and Filatova's type descriptions with the MBTT ones. And the fact that you identify with the INTP descriptions means that you probably can't read type descriptions correctly and that you don't understand them, because, as we all agree on, your correct MBTT type is most likely not INTP, is it?


    In that case I must believe that you are an idiot. How can you brainwash yourself with such a stupid argument? The types can be observed -- if you open your eyes for once.

    I'm starting to get a clearer picture about this. I think you have some sort of mental illness. I don't know if you're familiar with the psychiatric term "delusion", but in psychiatry, it refers to a fixed, false belief. No matter how many people disagree, no matter hard you try, you cannot convince such a person that their belief is false. And if you "attack" the belief, look out. That's exactly what happened above. Also, I don't care if you have mental illness. Personal attacks have no place in most any discussion. Most ten year olds know how to treat others with respect. Stop for a second and think about that. Let it sink in deep. What does that say about your level of maturity and/or intelligence? Do you simply not know any better?

    That's the first possibility. The second possibility is that you are a troll. You take on a controversial point of view, claim that it is obvious (even though no one agrees with it), and then personally attack those who question your beliefs. Doesn't that sound like classic troll behaviour? Honestly, I'm surprised that I haven't read any other claims around here that you are a troll.

    In any event, something is terribly wrong.

    Jason

  29. #29
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Personally I don't think that reaching a consensus about anyone's type is that important; I think it's more important that we understand where everyone is coming from for their typings.
    But if we only understand where everyone is coming from, then there is no final say as to anyone's type. For example, if I only know that you're using a method different from me, but not whose is better, then what have we accomplished? All we have are different methods of typing people, but no say as to which one is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Also, we're talking about typing each other online, or typing celebrities. When people here actually meet, discussions on each other's types are much clearer.
    I can't comment on that. I've never discussed socionics with any knowledgeable person in real life. I'm also not very good at typing people I know; there are only a select few that I'm fairly certain about.


    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Something like that has been tried, see for instance Hugo's test here:


    http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...nic_type_tests
    That seems different from what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting several multiple paragraph descriptions of each type (e.g., five three paragraph descriptions per type), and have the testee rate each description. The reason for having descriptions would be because that is often the bottom line when determining someone's type. The reason for having multiple of them would be because one or two descriptions are not really enough to accurately say that the type is conclusive. I also suggested that if someone gives a perfect rating to a description (the scale should be fairly large), then that type gets extra points. This would be because a description that fits perfectly is much more likely to be one of the correct type, so this should be given extra credit. The real trick to designing such a test would be creating multiple accurate descriptions for each type. And, as far as I can see, this would be difficult.

    Jason

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I'm starting to get a clearer picture about this. I think you have some sort of mental illness. I don't know if you're familiar with the psychiatric term "delusion", but in psychiatry, it refers to a fixed, false belief.
    If anyone is having a fixed, false belief here it you and others who refuse to study the empirical material that is right in front of your eyes to see. My arguments are still conclusive, and you haven't provided any counter argument. You have just stated that you are skeptical. You are not arguing, you are just saying that you disagree. But you have no grounds for disagreeing, so are you just stupid? Are you unintelligent and unable to grasp the logical distinctions? Don't you know what you are talking about, or what is it? What is the real explanation for your idiotic behaviour?

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    No matter how many people disagree, no matter hard you try, you cannot convince such a person that their belief is false. And if you "attack" the belief, look out. That's exactly what happened above.
    Yes, no matter how many objectively strong arguments I put forward to make it easier for you to see the truth, you stick to your prejudices and your unfounded skepticism. You want to belong to the ignorant crowd. I suggest that you think for yourself, and you refuse. That makes you a despicable idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    Also, I don't care if you have mental illness. Personal attacks have no place in most any discussion.
    And yet you use them yourself. How consequential is that in your opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    Most ten year olds know how to treat others with respect.
    But obviously you don't, since you are not treating me and what I say with respect. You don't show the objective truth any respect whatsoever.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    Stop for a second and think about that. Let it sink in deep. What does that say about your level of maturity and/or intelligence?
    Yes, do exactly that in relation to your own behaviour here.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    Do you simply not know any better?
    I surely know much better and much more than you, that's a certainty.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    That's the first possibility. The second possibility is that you are a troll.
    And I am certainly not a troll, even though some idiots like to suggest that.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    You take on a controversial point of view, claim that it is obvious (even though no one agrees with it), and then personally attack those who question your beliefs. Doesn't that sound like classic troll behaviour?
    No, not if the point of view happens to be true, which it is in this case. You just haven't studied the problem enough. I have.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    Honestly, I'm surprised that I haven't read any other claims around here that you are a troll.
    Those who have understood what I am talking about realize that I am not a troll.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    In any event, something is terribly wrong.
    Yes, people's insistence on ignorance and prejudices.

  31. #31
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    But if we only understand where everyone is coming from, then there is no final say as to anyone's type. For example, if I only know that you're using a method different from me, but not whose is better, then what have we accomplished? All we have are different methods of typing people, but no say as to which one is correct.
    Well yes, in the end, you have to decide for yourself whether the picture you have makes sense or not. In my experience, a time comes when all the pieces fit into place and then it all makes sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    That seems different from what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting several multiple paragraph descriptions of each type (e.g., five three paragraph descriptions per type), and have the testee rate each description. The reason for having descriptions would be because that is often the bottom line when determining someone's type. The reason for having multiple of them would be because one or two descriptions are not really enough to accurately say that the type is conclusive. I also suggested that if someone gives a perfect rating to a description (the scale should be fairly large), then that type gets extra points. This would be because a description that fits perfectly is much more likely to be one of the correct type, so this should be given extra credit. The real trick to designing such a test would be creating multiple accurate descriptions for each type. And, as far as I can see, this would be difficult.
    It's not so different. If you take that test, a point comes where you have options based on one-paragraph descriptions (based on subtypes, but anyway), following previous selections based on one-paragraph descriptions of functions. So the logic is similar.

    The problem with the kind of test you're proposing, and it has been attempted here many times, is that many people seeem to have difficulty in deciding which bits in each description are more or less important.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  32. #32
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    If anyone is having a fixed, false belief here it you and others who refuse to study the empirical material that is right in front of your eyes to see. My arguments are still conclusive, and you haven't provided any counter argument. You have just stated that you are skeptical. You are not arguing, you are just saying that you disagree. But you have no grounds for disagreeing, so are you just stupid? Are you unintelligent and unable to grasp the logical distinctions? Don't you know what you are talking about, or what is it? What is the real explanation for your idiotic behaviour?


    Yes, no matter how many objectively strong arguments I put forward to make it easier for you to see the truth, you stick to your prejudices and your unfounded skepticism. You want to belong to the ignorant crowd. I suggest that you think for yourself, and you refuse. That makes you a despicable idiot.


    And yet you use them yourself. How consequential is that in your opinion?


    But obviously you don't, since you are not treating me and what I say with respect. You don't show the objective truth any respect whatsoever.


    Yes, do exactly that in relation to your own behaviour here.


    I surely know much better and much more than you, that's a certainty.


    And I am certainly not a troll, even though some idiots like to suggest that.


    No, not if the point of view happens to be true, which it is in this case. You just haven't studied the problem enough. I have.


    Those who have understood what I am talking about realize that I am not a troll.


    Yes, people's insistence on ignorance and prejudices.
    Actually, I think I've really figured it out. I just read that you have Asperger syndrome. I searched Google for -Asperger egocentric- and there were a few websites that stated that people with Asperger syndrome can be more egocentric than the rest of the population. I think that is the problem here. You are simply not capable of understanding how to treat others properly. For example, you used as an argument that I'm not treating you with respect, and therefore, I'm being contradictory. However, most people understand that if you treat someone badly, then you simply cannot expect them to treat you with respect. The fact that it is contradictory doesn't mean anything.

    I figured that Asperger syndrome only meant that people with it don't grasp social conventions. However, it seems that some don't grasp social principles either. The principle here is this: how would you like it if someone called you an idiot because they thought that you're wrong? The fact is, you probably wouldn't. You would probably think that it is wrong. If we assume that others are similar to you in this respect (and we can), then we can infer that others won't like it either and will also think that it is wrong. Therefore, you don't say something like that. The problem is that you don't grasp these principles, but since it's due to your illness, I cannot really fault you.

    However, if you want to be a functioning member of society, then you are going to have to somehow learn how to treat people with respect. Otherwise, no one will like you and you will make yourself into a target. You will find that no one will really listen to you and some will try and sabotage your efforts, simply because they don't like you. If you want to live a lifetime of frustration, then, by all means, be my guest. But if you want to make your life easier, you're going to have to learn. By the way, I have my own mental afflictions. I have OCD. It's gotten so bad that, at one point, I doubted every thought that I had. However, I have learned to deal with it, and so must you have to learn to deal with your problems.

    An interesting moral corollary to this is whether it's right to punish a sociopath. We assume that because you have a disease that causes you to not be able to perceive social rules, it would not be fair to punish you when you violate them. But what about a sociopath? Their nature is different than the rest of us. Clearly, behaviour resides in the brain, so there must be something different about their brains. Therefore, can't we call this a disease? Usually, with psychological illnesses, what separates an abnormality from an illness is that the illness has a deleterious effect on one's life. Doesn't sociopathic behaviour have a negative effect on the lives of those who exhibit it? And if it is a disease, do we punish people who are insane or have illnesses like Asperger syndrome when they do wrong, or do we commit those who are sociopaths to confined treatment? It's an interesting question, but I think that the bottom line is that sociopaths are a danger to society, so they must be confined in some way. Anyway, I digress. Please, if not for our sake, but for your own, treat people with respect. You are free to disagree, but you are not free to harass or use personal attacks.

    Jason
    Last edited by jason_m; 06-18-2008 at 12:57 AM.

  33. #33
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can't believe people are still arguing this with Phaedrus. You can't convince him otherwise. It doesn't matter what you say, or what your arguments are, Phaedrus is going to keep his opinion.

    Btw, Phaedrus, there is no way in hell you are an INTp. Its just not possible. Of course you are just gonna ignore what I am saying, but I'm telling you straight up, you are not INTp. Hopefully some day you'll figure this out.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  34. #34
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    I can't believe people are still arguing this with Phaedrus. You can't convince him otherwise. It doesn't matter what you say, or what your arguments are, Phaedrus is going to keep his opinion.

    Btw, Phaedrus, there is no way in hell you are an INTp. Its just not possible. Of course you are just gonna ignore what I am saying, but I'm telling you straight up, you are not INTp. Hopefully some day you'll figure this out.
    What you said here is pretty reasonable.

    Jason

  35. #35
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    I might sometimes, I try to consider "everything", this includes the "role" that each type has within the socion...an example is IEE, "the Reporter/Psychologist", a "role" that IEEs like Rick and tereg really fit well, I think.
    Oh yeah, that kinda role--I do that sometimes too, I think haha... Rick and tereg def fit the reporter/psychologist role.

    What I was thinking about was, well, something along the lines of what Expat described (Russian Socionist reasoning

    1) America idealizes ENTj, for some reason
    2) America idealizes JFK b/c he represents its 'ideal man'
    3) JFK is ENTj

    To me, this seems kinda silly... Just ignoring JFK's real personality.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Actually, I think I've really figured it out. I just read that you have Asperger syndrome. I searched Google for -Asperger egocentric- and there were a few websites that stated that people with Asperger syndrome can be more egocentric than the rest of the population. I think that is the problem here. You are simply not capable of understanding how to treat others properly.
    How I treat you or other people is totally irrelevant for the truth of my statements. And whether I have Asperger's syndrome or not is also totally irrelevant -- for exactly the same reasons that it is totally irrelevant for the truth of the theory of relativity that Einstein had Asperger's syndrome (which is a fact). You try to avoid addressing the arguments by focusing on my person, which is properly called cheating. You are wrong and I am right about the types and Socionics in general -- and that is simply a fact. Everything else is irrelevant for this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    For example, you used as an argument that I'm not treating you with respect, and therefore, I'm being contradictory.
    I did not use it as an argument. How incapable of using logic can you be? I only pointed it out so that you could see the total irrelevance of your own accusations against how I treat people (including you). If you still haven't understood that, you really are an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    However, most people understand that if you treat someone badly, then you simply cannot expect them to treat you with respect.
    I don't expect people to treat me with respect. Few people on this forum do, but that is irrelevant. I don't care how people treat me, but I do care about how they treat my arguments. And it is a fact that you -- and a lot of others -- dismiss logic and facts for completely irrelevant reasons. It is totally irrelevant how I treat you and how you treat me as long as you can argue logically, but unfortunately you seem to be incapable of such a task.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    The fact that it is contradictory doesn't mean anything.
    Wrong. It means that your argument was totally irrelevant and therefore should be ignored. You have still not addressed any of my arguments. You are so far nothing but a dogmatic skeptic, which is a sign of stupidity.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    I figured that Asperger syndrome only meant that people with it don't grasp social conventions. However, it seems that some don't grasp social principles either. The principle here is this: how would you like it if someone called you an idiot because they thought that you're wrong?
    *yawn* ... People call me an idiot all the time. And many people think that I am wrong. Why should I care about it? It is irrelevant what they think of me as a person. We are here to discuss Socionics and the truth of the types. Our opinions are irrelevant -- only objective truth counts. So far no one has been able to come up with any arguments that have forced me to reconsider my beliefs. If someone can, I will change my beliefs -- and I will do it regardless of whether the person expressing the arguments think that I am an idiot or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    The fact is, you probably wouldn't.
    Whether I like it or not is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    You would probably think that it is wrong.
    No, not if it is accompanied with objectively strong arguments. Unfortunately that almost never happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    If we assume that others are similar to you in this respect (and we can), then we can infer that others won't like it either and will also think that it is wrong.
    It is not wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    Therefore, you don't say something like that. The problem is that you don't grasp these principles, but since it's due to your illness, I cannot really fault you.
    What you refer to as social "principles" here are irrelevant. You have a totally wrong focus. You don't focus on the issue, you focus on the person. That is a well-known logical mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    However, if you want to be a functioning member of society, then you are going to have to somehow learn how to treat people with respect.
    And if I don't care about being a functioning member of society, what shall you do then? Are you so deluded that you believe that my statements become automatically false just because I don't adhere to some social norms?

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    Otherwise, no one will like you and you will make yourself into a target.
    Tell me something new. It doesn't matter how I put things, people make me a target anyway. But as I said, that is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    You will find that no one will really listen to you and some will try and sabotage your efforts, simply because they don't like you.
    So what? It is still totally irrelevant. If people are more interested in my person than in the objective truth, then they are idiots of course, because the objective truth is much more important than I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    If you want to live a lifetime of frustration, then, by all means, be my guest.
    My personal life is none of your business, and it is totally irrelevant for the truth of what I say. (Do you realize that you are only repeating what is irrelevant comments, whereas I am only repeating relevant facts?)

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    But if you want to make your life easier, you're going to have to learn.
    *YAWN* ... When will you get to the point? When will you say something that is not utterly trivial and boring?

    By the way, I have my own mental afflictions. I have OCD.
    Good. Then we know something important about your personality structure. It is a rather strong argument that we are not the same type. If you want to understand your type better, you can read about the Obsessive personality pattern in Nancy McWilliams' book Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual. Even though all psychoanalytic perspectives are wrong (scientifically speaking) in their theoretical explanations, McWilliams describes the personality patterns quite well, and all those patterns are strongly linked to specific socionic types. The INTp's (and thus my own) personality pattern in a psychoanalytic perspective is called "Schizoid".

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    It's gotten so bad that, at one point, I doubted every thought that I had. However, I have learned to deal with it, and so must you have to learn to deal with your problems.
    My personal problems are irrelevant in this context. I am not here to get help from you or other people. I am here to discuss the types.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    An interesting moral corollary to this is whether it's right to punish a sociopath. We assume that because you have a disease that causes you to not be able to perceive social rules, it would not be fair to punish you when you violate them. But what about a sociopath? Their nature is different than the rest of us.
    Yes. A psychopath is born evil. And if it is not always wrong to punish people, it is not wrong to punish a sociopath for doing wrong. A psychopath is no less free than the rest of us. Either we are all free, or none of us is free in the sense that is relevant to morality -- at least when we compare sociopaths (psychopaths) and "normal" people.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    Clearly, behaviour resides in the brain, so there must be something different about their brains.
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    Therefore, can't we call this a disease?
    No. Diseases are processes and they are normally possible to cure. Sociopathy is not curable. Having a differently structured brain is not to have a disease.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    Usually, with psychological illnesses, what separates an abnormality from an illness is that the illness has a deleterious effect on one's life. Doesn't sociopathic behaviour have a negative effect on the lives of those who exhibit it?
    Schizophrenia is a disease that has negative effects on the lives of those who suffer from it, but just because somethign has negative effects on your life it doesn't mean that it is a disease. Asperger's syndrome is not a disease either. OCD might be called a disease, because it is curable with cognitive therepy. But Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder is not a disease because it is something you are born with. It is a personality type.

    And if it is a disease, do we punish people who are insane or have illnesses like Asperger syndrome when they do wrong, or do we commit those who are sociopaths to confined treatment? It's an interesting question, but I think that the bottom line is that sociopaths are a danger to society, so they must be confined in some way.
    Yes, sociopaths are born evil, and they are often a danger to society.

    Anyway, I digress. Please, if not for our sake, but for your own, treat people with respect.
    You haven't presented any good arguments why I should bother about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m
    You are free to disagree, but you are not free to harass or use personal attacks.
    I am as free as you are to do it. And I don't do it any more than you do here.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    I can't believe people are still arguing this with Phaedrus. You can't convince him otherwise. It doesn't matter what you say, or what your arguments are, Phaedrus is going to keep his opinion.
    I will be convinced by objectively good arguments. It definitely matters what you say and what your arguments are. But I am not going to change my views for the objectively wrong reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Btw, Phaedrus, there is no way in hell you are an INTp.
    There is no way that I am not an INTp. And there is no way that you are an INTj. V.I. proves that you are not an INTj. You are an irrational type.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Its just not possible.
    You believe that it is not possible because you are mistyped, and you compare me with yourself. You could perhaps be an INTp, but you cannot be an INTj. And I am an INTp for sure, because in contrast to you I have compared everything with reality. It is a proven fact -- empirically proven -- that I am an INTp.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Of course you are just gonna ignore what I am saying, but I'm telling you straight up, you are not INTp.
    I know that you are saying that -- and I know for a fact that your belief is false.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    is this fun for you, Phaedrus?
    No, not at all. It's rather boring actually, because I find it boring that people never learn and that people refuse to take reason. Instead they take the simple route and choose to dismiss objectively good arguments because they find it convenient. They are intellectually lazy, and some of them are just idiots that will never get it no matter how hard they try.

  39. #39
    Your DNA is mine. Mediator Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,481
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    hm well... what do you find fun?
    How is that relevant to the discussion at hand?
    D-SEI 9w1

    This is me and my dual being scientific together

  40. #40
    Your DNA is mine. Mediator Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,481
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    it isn't. I just want to know more about Phaedrus himself.
    perhaps you could create another thread entitled "Fun and Phaedrus"
    D-SEI 9w1

    This is me and my dual being scientific together

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •