Descriptions of EACH variant of EACH socionic type

**machintruc** · 09-01-2008, 03:18 PM

It's hard to describe 16 different types. MBTT is already criticised because it's pretty hard to know the behaviours of 16 separate types. It's harder than 4 temperaments, 4 main DISC profiles, or 5 FFM dichotomies, or even 9 enneagram types.

Myersian types are often badly described. For example, I don't like descriptions of my own myersian type, which say that ENTJ's are pushy assholes or such (i.e. describing ENTJ's as -++, as they can be 0+- as well).

Socionic types are badly described too, but in a lesser extent. For example, are SEI's accomodating ? EIE's sociable ? SLE's pushy ? SLI's sluggish ? LII's quiet ? LIE's outgoing ?

It depends of the physiological variant. For example, a --- SEI may appear as SLE to an unexperienced socionist. Or, a 0+- LII as ILE. Another example is that even experienced socionists tend to write S0D0 like descriptions of LSI's, while putting lots of S-D+ people on LSI celebrity lists, such as Stalin or Milosevic.

Now that there is GCPT, we have a set of 168 different types. It's already hard to deal with 16 types, it's harder to deal with 168.

Is someone interested about writing such descriptions ? Providing examples ? It'd prevent those who get to know socionics to deal with stereotypes, instead of types.

**Ezra** · 09-01-2008, 04:31 PM

Yeah, okay, fair enough.

**Brilliand** · 09-05-2008, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by machintruc

It's hard to describe 16 different types. MBTT is already criticised because it's pretty hard to know the behaviours of 16 separate types. It's harder than 4 temperaments, 4 main DISC profiles, or 5 FFM dichotomies, or even 9 enneagram types.

Myersian types are often badly described. For example, I don't like descriptions of my own myersian type, which say that ENTJ's are pushy assholes or such (i.e. describing ENTJ's as -++, as they can be 0+- as well).

Socionic types are badly described too, but in a lesser extent. For example, are SEI's accomodating ? EIE's sociable ? SLE's pushy ? SLI's sluggish ? LII's quiet ? LIE's outgoing ?

It depends of the physiological variant. For example, a --- SEI may appear as SLE to an unexperienced socionist. Or, a 0+- LII as ILE. Another example is that even experienced socionists tend to write S0D0 like descriptions of LSI's, while putting lots of S-D+ people on LSI celebrity lists, such as Stalin or Milosevic.

Now that there is GCPT, we have a set of 168 different types. It's already hard to deal with 16 types, it's harder to deal with 168.

Is someone interested about writing such descriptions ? Providing examples ? It'd prevent those who get to know socionics to deal with stereotypes, instead of types.

How am I going to memorize 168 types? I think we need a breakdown, where the phitypes are described in a way that doesn't intrude on Socionics and Socionics is described in a way that doesn't intrude on the phitypes - that is, descriptions that make it obvious that they are two different aspects of personality.

If in fact they are...

**machintruc** · 09-05-2008, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by dee

i think certain constancies in the low-medium-high levels of certain chamicals in the brain might indeed be correlated with a particular type, for all types, but i doubt you can set off a full scale variations in the three letter code for each type.

There aren't scale variations. For example, a LII of my variant is just called a 0+- LII. That's all.

**Brilliand** · 09-05-2008, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by machintruc

There aren't scale variations. For example, a LII of my variant is just called a 0+- LII. That's all.

"Full scale" in the sense of being "complete" - that is, "full-scale." Dee didn't mean a gradient.

**machintruc** · 09-05-2008, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by Brilliand

"Full scale" in the sense of being "complete" - that is, "full-scale." Dee didn't mean a gradient.

But practically, what does it mean ?

**Brilliand** · 09-05-2008, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by machintruc

But practically, what does it mean ?

Probably that not every phitype-sociotype combination will actually exist. It could also mean that brain chemicals shouldn't be considered part of personality (perhaps they change with circumstances or diet).

**marooned** · 09-05-2008, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by machintruc

It's already hard to deal with 16 types, it's harder to deal with 168.

**machintruc** · 09-05-2008, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Brilliand

Probably that not every phitype-sociotype combination will actually exist. It could also mean that brain chemicals shouldn't be considered part of personality (perhaps they change with circumstances or diet).

Have you read GCPT ?