Comments about making Enneagram-Socionics type correlations

[Rubicon]

I don't like your avatar anymore.

That's because you're an Alpha SF whose fancies change with the breeze. :-P

[Rubicon]

d'oh - I lost that one

[strrrng]

Yeah, exactly. That's what I was meaning with Si base. Reality pretty much creates an identity for us I think. Whether or not reality sucks is a different story.

I don't think that's an inherent facet of Si base. It seem more 9-related, i.e. the connections between you and everything are what make you feel alive, and thus if reality "suffuses" you it only enhances this feeling. I think it's a little more than cognitive information processing.

[aka-kitsune]

And they're searching for this part that's missing so they can piece together their identity? So their ultimate goal is to present their truly authentic self ... so the trying on identities thing is an unhealthy 4's behaviour?

"Trying on identities" is likely more associated with E4w3 and so-variant dominance. Many 4s are more eclectic and are constantly sifting through influences and adding to their repertoire. It's a cultivation thing.

[Robot]

I don't think that's an inherent facet of Si base. It seem more 9-related, i.e. the connections between you and everything are what make you feel alive, and thus if reality "suffuses" you it only enhances this feeling. I think it's a little more than cognitive information processing.

I agree completely. It's not an inherent facet of Si. I also agree that it's an enneagram 9 thing.

And yes exactly, I think it's more than cognitive information processing that she's talking about too.

Sheesh. You sure are great to have around.

[Robot]

So what should I do next? Write up the bare minimum requirements in order to be an enneagram 4 or have my SEI enneagram 4 friend type up why she's a 4?

[Christy B]

What I am doing is a synthesis, not an analysis. Correlating ideas from different fields of science is , and it corresponds to the dialectical-algorithmic thinking style described by Gulenko in his article (which you can find in the Article section).

is analysis and projecting subjective ideas onto reality. That's not what I am doing, and the only reason you think that I am is because you don't understand the difference between and . All of what I am saying is described in the socionic literature, which you either haven't read or haven't understood.

Holy sh*t! Are you serious? You are Te ego type???? I would NEVER in a million years have guessed that from what you write...

[Rubicon]

So what should I do next? Write up the bare minimum requirements in order to be an enneagram 4 or have my SEI enneagram 4 friend type up why she's a 4?

Yes please. (c:

[Christy B]

So what should I do next? Write up the bare minimum requirements in order to be an enneagram 4 or have my SEI enneagram 4 friend type up why she's a 4?

Who came up with the idea that SEI could not be 4 ???

[Rubicon]

Who came up with the idea that SEI could not be 4 ???

Dunno, but whoever did should be taken out and flogged severely IMO.

[Robot]

Dunno, but whoever did should be taken out and flogged severely IMO.

lol Jem.

Jem's a masochist.

[Rubicon]

lol Jem.

Jem's a masochist.

Not necessarily ...

Yes, you heard me correctly. SEIs must be Nines.

Incidentally, here's a thread in which this issue was discussed ... or brutalised, w/e. Uh ... skimming through it, there's a lot of SEI fluff at the beginning - ok the majority of it is SEI nonsense. And those were the days when I apparently considered arguing with Phaedrus a worthy undertaking. Ah, the memories. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=18584

[strrrng]

I agree completely. It's not an inherent facet of Si. I also agree that it's an enneagram 9 thing.

And yes exactly, I think it's more than cognitive information processing that she's talking about too.

Sheesh. You sure are great to have around.

Thanks

[Phaedrus]

Holy sh*t! Are you serious? You are Te ego type????

Yes, a clear example of an INTp, subtype if you want to be more precise.

I would NEVER in a million years have guessed that from what you write...

Then you learned something new. But the question I think you should be asking yourself is this: Why not? What were you lacking in your understanding of Socionics that made you think that I was not a ego type?

[Robot]

It might be a while before we get the explanation from ISFp 4 girl.

I'm gonna go read some more Riso and Hudson.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It might be a while before we get the explanation from ISFp 4 girl.

Because such a creature does not exist.

[Robot]

Because such a creature does not exist.

Lol. You knew her too Cycops.

Also you seem so confident....do you know what the bare minimum requirement to be an enneagram 4 is? If you don't have a clear picture of that in your head you can't judge whether or not a socionics type can or can't be that type.

Many of you are saying an ISFp can't be an enneagram 4 for x or y reason when x or y reason isn't a requirement to be a 4...just something that either might or will probably be true...not something that HAS to be true.

[strrrng]

Cyclops already demonstrated his vast ignorance - which I exposed - on the nature of 4's.

[crazedrat]

the enneagram is worthless, and you are wasting your time.

[Christy B]

Yes, a clear example of an INTp, subtype if you want to be more precise.


Then you learned something new. But the question I think you should be asking yourself is this: Why not? What were you lacking in your understanding of Socionics that made you think that I was not a ego type?

Oh well, I would have thought INTj. In any case I'm sure stating that you are a "clear" example of INTp Ni sub is probably inaccurate.

[Phaedrus]

Oh well, I would have thought INTj.

That was a common mistake among members of this forum some years ago. It probably occurs so often because the socionics descriptions of are misleading and very easily misinterpreted.

In any case I'm sure stating that you are a "clear" example of INTp Ni sub is probably inaccurate.

I didn't want to suggest that I am clear example of the subtype, but I am definitely a clear example of INTp.

[crazedrat]

there is no use fighting against stupidity. by fighting stupidity, all you do is strenghten it.

[Phaedrus]

there is no use fighting against stupidity. by fighting stupidity, all you do is strenghten it.

There is not much use in anything really. Fortunately, the world as we know it will come to and end this century.

[Phaedrus]

Do you have any obscure plans we should know about?

No, I just predict the world's future. My seems to be infallible in these cases.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

No, I just predict the world's future. My seems to be infallible in these cases.

I *think* I look forward to it, but most of us will not be around to see it. Well, if it comes sooner, i've made my plans haha

[Phaedrus]

But you fail to see that the world as "we" see it might not be the way others see it... and that means it's possibly just your problem. lol

We will see a lot of human suffering the coming decades, more than most people can imagine. That will be a huge problem for many people, but far less for you and me than it will be a problem for others. I am so cynical that I have already resigned to the role of the observer. I will observe the end of the world if I live that long, but I will do very little to save it, since it's futile anyway. What theoretically can be done to solve the problems, will in fact not be done. Of course you can say that that's a difference in perspective, but it's hardly my problem if I fail to see the world as the rest of mankind see it. Time will tell that I'm right.

[crazedrat]

you are very much like me in this regard phaedrus

[Phaedrus]

you are very much like me in this regard phaedrus

That's not surprising.

[crazedrat]

there may be hope for the enlightenment of select individuals in brainwashing the culture with art, if you could become a master artist. that is the only thing i can see worth working toward

[Phaedrus]

there may be hope for the enlightenment of select individuals in brainwashing the culture with art, if you could become a master artist. that is the only thing i can see worth working toward

I will take that into consideration too.

[Rick]

The identity of the types is obvious, and most serious socionists agree that they are.

Like who?

[Phaedrus]

Like who?

For example all of those who include MBTI and Keirsey tests at their socionic sites as well as links to the corresponding MBTT and Keirsey types side by side with their socionic type profiles. And even you must agree that the introverted sensory/sensing types are identical in behaviours and attitudes in MBTT and Socionics.

Do you take back your statement that I am probably an LSI and accept that I am an ILI?

[Rick]

For example all of those who include MBTI and Keirsey tests at their socionic sites as well as links to the corresponding MBTT and Keirsey types side by side with their socionic type profiles. And even you must agree that the introverted sensory/sensing types are identical in behaviours and attitudes in MBTT and Socionics.

I've heard many mentions of Myers-Briggs Typology and Keirseyan typology at socionics conferences in Kiev, and the overwhelming sentiment has been to view those as separate, non-identical typologies from socionics. There was a period in the early or mid 90s when socionists were enthusiastic about incorporating MBTT into socionics, but since then they have become deeply disenchanted with this. I can list those who have expressed this opinion: Bukalov, Karpenko, Chikirisova, Churyumov, Gulenko, Lytov, Yermak, Prokofieva, and others. Each of these people at some point made an investigation of Myers-Briggs type theory and tried to correlate it with socionics, but ultimately found the two too incongruous to merge. To demonstrate this point once and for all, Lytov made an interesting study where he gave socionists descriptions of Myers-Briggs types (without the type name at top) and asked them to say which socionic types they described. The result (I can dig it up if you want) showed that many of the Myers-Briggs descriptions were not recognizably similar to their supposed socionics counterparts. I believe Lytov (who is a careful researcher) chose the most well-known MBTI descriptions and disseminated them among the most prominent socionists.

[Mediator Kam]

I personally don't think SEIs can be 4s (this is just my feeling - no evidence to back it up whatsoever w00t) ... because I think an SEI's Si makes them too grounded in the here and now, in physical reality to be able to successfully go about recreating themselves identity-wise. I can see recreating their external image, behaviour etc ... but I can't even conceive of how you would go about recreating your identity as an Si-dominant type. An SEI's identity is tied up with how they relate to the world around them in a sensory way .... so in order to recreate their identity, it'd have to be a very conscious act involving deliberately ignoring their physical instincts or something - it would be more like simply acting. Which I've done in the past, but could never sustain as it tires me out exceedingly. The idea of recreating my identity certainly fascinates me, but I could never seriously entertain the idea because ... Idk - I am who I am who I am. I think that's related to my Si base. lol Reliance on my inate instincts. I don't think it's enough to say I strongly identify with the following - "Want/need/seek to discover or make an identity for his or her self" - therefore I must be a 4. I think nearly every person could relate to that to some degree at some point in their life. I mean I "want/need/seek to ...." but I've realised it's impossible for me to do. w00t I may be going out on a limb here, but I think all SEIs would come to that conclusion if they really know themselves - no matter how much they relate to that statement. I think it comes down to whether or not that motivation pretty much sums your motivations up as a person or not - and I think it can be pretty hard to separate your core motivation (if such a thing exists) from your needs/desires that have arisen from experiences in your life. So I don't think it's as easy as "read them all ... and whichever one you relate to most must be you".

I can quite easily change who I am. I'm an actor who loves to make people laugh. So take that you horse-girl who wears the blinders on the side so you can only see straight ahead of yourself.

[Phaedrus]

I've heard many mentions of Myers-Briggs Typology and Keirseyan typology at socionics conferences in Kiev, and the overwhelming sentiment has been to view those as separate, non-identical typologies from socionics. There was a period in the early or mid 90s when socionists were enthusiastic about incorporating MBTT into socionics, but since then they have become deeply disenchanted with this. I can list those who have expressed this opinion: Bukalov, Karpenko, Chikirisova, Churyumov, Gulenko, Lytov, Yermak, Prokofieva, and others. Each of these people at some point made an investigation of Myers-Briggs type theory and tried to correlate it with socionics, but ultimately found the two too incongruous to merge. To demonstrate this point once and for all, Lytov made an interesting study where he gave socionists descriptions of Myers-Briggs types (without the type name at top) and asked them to say which socionic types they described. The result (I can dig it up if you want) showed that many of the Myers-Briggs descriptions were not recognizably similar to their supposed socionics counterparts. I believe Lytov (who is a careful researcher) chose the most well-known MBTI descriptions and disseminated them among the most prominent socionists.

I know the study, and I have seen the result, which only proves that those socionists participating in it were incompetent at comparing type descriptions from different typologies. And the names you mention have obviously not studied the correlations enough. The types are the same, and you are an idiot. Since you still haven't admitted your mistake regarding my type, you little piece of worm shit, I hope you will live the rest of your life in misery.

That there can be so many idiots among well-known socionists is a mystery. The four dimensions (dichotomies) are identical in MBTT and Socionics, and since they necessarily correlate with the types and the functions in such a way that it is correct to say the each type is defined by the four dimensions, it is not possible that the types are not identical in MBTT, Keirsey, and Socionics.

[Jarno]

To demonstrate this point once and for all, Lytov made an interesting study where he gave socionists descriptions of Myers-Briggs types (without the type name at top) and asked them to say which socionic types they described. The result (I can dig it up if you want) showed that many of the Myers-Briggs descriptions were not recognizably similar to their supposed socionics counterparts. I believe Lytov (who is a careful researcher) chose the most well-known MBTI descriptions and disseminated them among the most prominent socionists.

If I remember correctly Lytov only used a punche line or some words as a description of the mbti types. Which is an unfair test. (Ofcourse it could be that I'm wrong, but that's what I remember, if we're talking about the same test).

Not that I'm saying that mbti descriptions could be incorporated in socionics...the view angles are to different.

It might be nice to take this test on this forum, I could copy some descriptions out of a good MBTI book and see what people here guess.

[leckysupport]

I know the study, and I have seen the result, which only proves that those socionists participating in it were incompetent at comparing type descriptions from different typologies. And the names you mention have obviously not studied the correlations enough. The types are the same, and you are an idiot. Since you still haven't admitted your mistake regarding my type, you little piece of worm shit, I hope you will live the rest of your life in misery.

That there can be so many idiots among well-known socionists is a mystery. The four dimensions (dichotomies) are identical in MBTT and Socionics, and since they necessarily correlate with the types and the functions in such a way that it is correct to say the each type is defined by the four dimensions, it is not possible that the types are not identical in MBTT, Keirsey, and Socionics.

What are the names of these non-idiot serious socionists you speak of?

[Phaedrus]

What are the names of these non-idiot serious socionists you speak of?

Check for yourself. Search the Internet. But even you must admit that it is impossible for a serious socionist to dispute that the types are identical, so why are you so interested in names? Can't you think for yourself?

[leckysupport]

Check for yourself. Search the Internet. But even you must admit that it is impossible for a serious socionist to dispute that the types are identical, so why are you so interested in names? Can't you think for yourself?

If you can't even back up your claim that most serious socionists believe this view, why on earth should I believe anything you say? You're the one making the controversial claims here, not me.

Stop fucking about, just get the names or admit you're wrong.

[Rick]

If I remember correctly Lytov only used a punche line or some words as a description of the mbti types. Which is an unfair test. (Ofcourse it could be that I'm wrong, but that's what I remember, if we're talking about the same test).

Not that I'm saying that mbti descriptions could be incorporated in socionics...the view angles are to different.

It might be nice to take this test on this forum, I could copy some descriptions out of a good MBTI book and see what people here guess.

No, that's not true. He gave people entire descriptions in Russian from a translation of David Keirsey's "Please Understand Me." The first time was at a conference in Moscow, the second was at the most popular socionics forum.

for reference: http://www.socioniko.net/ru/gazeta/2...alog-mbti.html
(in Russian)

That would be an interesting demonstration here, but since most people came to socionics through MBTT, rather than being unaware of it, I doubt the results would be as telling.