Let's stop with lower capitalization last dichotomy

[Jarno]

Why does everybody write (for example) INTp instead of INTP.

There is no difference between rationality in MBTI and Socionics.

It's just an invention of Ganin, as a respons to people who said that you have to switch J and P. This was a poor respons, but everybody seems to follow him blindly.

It would actually make more sense to write iNTP because introversion/extraversion differs more than rational/irrational between MBTI and Socionics.

I say, stop with the lower caps.

Let's discuss....

[Simon Ssmall]

meh.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I thought the idea of the lower case letter was to distinguish that the functions were different?

[Jarno]

I thought the idea of the lower case letter was to distinguish that the functions were different?

The article of Ganin is here:

http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm

I conclude out of his intentions that he thinks MBTI functions are to be taken seriously.

So therefor he thinks the types don't correlate, because of the different functions. With some weird reasoning concerning T/F and N/S dichotomy preferences he tries to make something out of it, creating the idea of lower capitalization.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Apparently Jungian version of judging perceiving is different from Myers Briggs. This article seems to explain the reason better:

http://www.socionics.com/articles/mbti.htm

[Ritella]

i have a Beta/Delta switch.
Call me iNFJ.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

They are different and it's socionists who do not recognize the similarities, not just Ganin. I find Ganin's approach ridiculous partially because I do not think that J/P is the only major difference.

[Rick]

With time the MBTI people are probably going to insist that socionics people use different names for their types to avoid confusing everyone. I personally think that the J/P concept in MBTI is somewhat different from socionics.

[Jarno]

Apparently Jungian version of judging perceiving is different from Myers Briggs. This article seems to explain the reason better:

http://www.socionics.com/articles/mbti.htm

Ah nice!

And in this part I see a flaw in Ganins explanation (read my explanation further below):


1. Type descriptions empirically gathered from the observation of people who took the MBTI test. These profiles are compatible with Jungian types.

2. Type descriptions artificially manufactured based on different functions as they appear in MBTI model. These descriptions are more accurate than the previous, but they only refer to the descriptions of extravert types obtained this way. Only extravert type descriptions are Jung compatible for the reasons explained above. All introvert type descriptions are twisted around the J and P preference. So if you have MBTI description of ISFP obtained this way, for example, you should know that it is actually Jungian ISFJ description you look at.

3. Mixed type descriptions obtained via combination of 1. and 2. Extravert type descriptions are, again, compatible with Jung, but Introvert type descriptions look like a compromise between J and P types. Basically, introvert type descriptions look like one-size-fit-all descriptions.


There are no official MBTI tests/descriptions which correspond to Ganins nr 2 and 3.

The number 2 and 3 tests/descriptions are maybe seen on the internet made by some sunday afternoon MBTI amateur, but the official MBTI tests administered by psychologists are according to nr 1, and therefor MBTI = Socionics as Ganin claims there, and to which I agree.

If anyone has evidence that I'm wrong, then I will gladly listen to that. Yet this is what I can say with my current understanding of MBTI tests.

It seems many people make the mistake to think MBTI has derived their type descriptions from functions like socionics did. But MBTI worked the other way around, they made the correct type descriptions and 'glued' some faulty functions to those types.

[Jarno]

Just to add, it's not that I'm defending MBTI as a better tool. On contrary, Socionics is more accurate at every aspect. I just don't agree with the 'let's switch J/P' and 'let's use different names' thing.

[Joy]

Why does everybody write (for example) INTp instead of INTP.

There is no difference between rationality in MBTI and Socionics.

It's just an invention of Ganin, as a respons to people who said that you have to switch J and P. This was a poor respons, but everybody seems to follow him blindly.

It would actually make more sense to write iNTP because introversion/extraversion differs more than rational/irrational between MBTI and Socionics.

I say, stop with the lower caps.

Let's discuss....

let's stop using 4 letter type names

[Ritella]

let's stop using 4 letter names

fixed.

[Joy]

muchas gracias señorita

[Joy]

john?

[Ritella]

and that FUCk.

[Ritella]

yea you're right. sorry.

and that FUCK.

Fixed.

[Ritella]

... So naughty!

yeah. what can i say? just using my -PolR

[JRiddy]

It's just a convention. And MBTI types are not necessarily related to socionics types. I often come up as ENFP in MBTI, so should I be ENtP? It's just a way to distinguish between the typing systems quickly in print, without having to use the 3-letter designators, which I find more confusing to use, because they rely on the order of the letters to distinguish things.

Hell, in my head I tend to visualize types as quadra + temperament, so maybe I could use some designation like that: AEP for me, GIP for an INTp, and so on. But no-one uses a convention like that.

Maybe you should work on English spelling reform while you're at it. For better or worse, the conventions exist and changing them is difficult and probably not worth it.

[consentingadult]

Why does everybody write (for example) INTp instead of INTP.

There is no difference between rationality in MBTI and Socionics.

It's just an invention of Ganin, as a respons to people who said that you have to switch J and P. This was a poor respons, but everybody seems to follow him blindly.

It would actually make more sense to write iNTP because introversion/extraversion differs more than rational/irrational between MBTI and Socionics.

I say, stop with the lower caps.

Let's discuss....

MBTI J/P is not the same as Jungian rationality/irrationality. It is, however, the same as Conscientiousness in FFM.

I have a better suggestion: lets stick to three letter typing.

[Jarno]

MBTI J/P is not the same as Jungian rationality/irrationality.

MBTI tests seem to correlate judging and perceiving directly with rationality and irrationality.

At least for let's say 99%.

But not the 50% of the time that others claim.

[Jarno]

For better or worse, the conventions exist and changing them is difficult and probably not worth it.

Yeah, maybe I should use my time for better things :-)

[Joy]

MBTI tests seem to correlate judging and perceiving directly with rationality and irrationality.

At least for let's say 99%.

But not the 50% of the time that others claim.

Some researchers have interpreted the reliability of the test as being low, with test takers who retake the test often being assigned a different type. According to some studies, 39–76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting some weeks or years later.[29][7] About 50% of people tested within nine months remain the same overall type and 36% remain the same after nine months.[31] When people are asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned by the MBTI, only half of people pick the same profile.[32] Critics also argue that the MBTI lacks falsifiability, which can cause confirmation bias in the interpretation of results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTI#Reliability

[Mediator Kam]

w/e I'm ISFP in MBTI and ISFp in Socionics.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It's just a convention. And MBTI types are not necessarily related to socionics types. I often come up as ENFP in MBTI, so should I be ENtP? It's just a way to distinguish between the typing systems quickly in print, without having to use the 3-letter designators, which I find more confusing to use, because they rely on the order of the letters to distinguish things.

Hell, in my head I tend to visualize types as quadra + temperament, so maybe I could use some designation like that: AEP for me, GIP for an INTp, and so on. But no-one uses a convention like that.

Maybe you should work on English spelling reform while you're at it. For better or worse, the conventions exist and changing them is difficult and probably not worth it.

I agree with what you are saying JRiddy.

Something else to add. The good thing about using the XXXx designation is it makes it easier to use the four dichotomies.

The four dichotomies seems to be a bone of contention with some people on this site and maybe other predominantly English speaking forums. Thing about the four dichotomies is that they are recognised and accepted by Jung, and by Ashura. They are valid and also useable part of classical socionics. Consequently typing people by the four dichotomies and thinking about a type as four dichotomies is made easier by this designation.

As I understand it, there can be some disagreement between E I and J P in socionics and MBTI. However using socionic dichotomies is fine for socionics and leaving a lower case letter at the end is a good way to show we mean socionic type.

Wither the actual type descriptions are the same in MBTI and socionics is possible, but putting a small letter at the end of the type designation, as JRiddy said, is traditionally accepted. I also think that it is practical: It saves a lot of questions on a forum such as, is that through MBTI or socionics you've determined your type. So it makes communication between people easier. (Which is useful because socionics is more accurate..more things to confirm it..intertype relations, more accurate dichotomies, functions etc.)

[Jarno]

Some researchers have interpreted the reliability of the test as being low, with test takers who retake the test often being assigned a different type. According to some studies, 39–76% of those tested fall into different types upon retesting some weeks or years later.[29][7] About 50% of people tested within nine months remain the same overall type and 36% remain the same after nine months.[31] When people are asked to compare their preferred type to that assigned by the MBTI, only half of people pick the same profile.[32] Critics also argue that the MBTI lacks falsifiability, which can cause confirmation bias in the interpretation of results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTI#Reliability

Although I agree with everything you say here, the same could be said about socionics. How often have you seen people on this forum change their type.

Socionics is also no contender for falsifability, which is general for psychology...

[Gilly]

People SHOULD use the 3-letter acronyms (EIE, ILE, SLI, etc) when referring to Socionics types.

[Exodus]

Just to add, it's not that I'm defending MBTI as a better tool. On contrary, Socionics is more accurate at every aspect.

How can Socionics be "more accurate" if it's describing the same types?

[Ritella]

Question:
Does anyone know when/why the 4 letter system was historically introduced in Socionics?
I'm assuming the 3 letter system was the original. Yes?

[ZTCrawcrustle]

Question:
Does anyone know when/why the 4 letter system was historically introduced in Socionics?
I'm assuming the 3 letter system was the original. Yes?

Yes, the three letter system was the original, I believe. Basically, the way I heard about it/read it somewhere is the four letter system was introduced when socionists first found out about the MBTI. They felt that the four letter system... I forget this part. (My guess is that it is probably easier to see the difference between types.) However, the lower case j/p was introduced to distinguish between MBTI types and socionics types, as the socionists thought they did not match and could not find a simple way to match them.

[Jarno]

How can Socionics be "more accurate" if it's describing the same types?

When both a 5 years old boy and a car-mechanic describes my car.

The mechanic will give you a more accurate description, while they have both described the exact same car.

Please don't tell me you couldn't have thought of this yourself.



Also, accuracy referred not only to descriptions, also testing, exlanations etc.

[Jarno]

Yes, the three letter system was the original, I believe. Basically, the way I heard about it/read it somewhere is the four letter system was introduced when socionists first found out about the MBTI. They felt that the four letter system... I forget this part. (My guess is that it is probably easier to see the difference between types.) However, the lower case j/p was introduced to distinguish between MBTI types and socionics types, as the socionists thought they did not match and could not find a simple way to match them.

I doubt if this is historically correct info.

Augusta herself had found out about MBTI before she created socionics.

The lower case j/p was introduced by Ganin because he got confused with the functions of MBTI and had his own explanation about it.

[Rick]

I doubt if this is historically correct info.

Augusta herself had found out about MBTI before she created socionics.

The lower case j/p was introduced by Ganin because he got confused with the functions of MBTI and had his own explanation about it.

Augusta found out about the MBTI somewhere in the 80s, or so I have heard. At this point socionics ideas were already in place, but some descriptions were lacking.

Some socionists in the Russian speaking world have used MBTI notation on their websites (such as "ESE/ESFJ") after finding out about the MBTI. However, Sergei Ganin, who first introduced socionics to the West, initiated the use of the ESFj notation. Don't quote me on this, but I believe he at first tried to use regular socionics notation, but because the overwhelming majority of his readers had studied the MBTI, they were confused, and he introduced the new notation to make it easier for them. I understand that, but I think times have changed a bit and socionics would do well to stand on its own two feet rather than make itself easier for MBTI people to digest.

[Ritella]

I understand that, but I think times have changed a bit and socionics would do well to stand on its own two feet rather than make itself easier for MBTI people to digest.

Yes. In that case, I think people should use the 3 letter terms when referring to socionics types.
There are only two possible arguments I have against this:
-The 4 letter nomenclature is more efficient to use for describing temperaments or uncertainty of 1 or more of the dichotomies. For example, how do socionists describe IJ temperament or ESxJ (well, I suppose the latter example only becomes a problem when you wish to describe ESFx, since you can just write xSE).
-I first discovered socionics through Ganin's website because I had typed in "INFJ" looking for MBTI stuff. I think that, for good or bad, most people get wind of socionics through MBTI. If all the sources switched to 3 letter type names, wouldn't this destroy a good 50% of our "advertising"?

[Jarno]

Yes. In that case, I think people should use the 3 letter terms when referring to socionics types.
There are only two possible arguments I have against this:
-The 4 letter nomenclature is more efficient to use for describing temperaments or uncertainty of 1 or more of the dichotomies. For example, how do socionists describe IJ temperament or ESxJ (well, I suppose the latter example only becomes a problem when you wish to describe ESFx, since you can just write xSE).
-I first discovered socionics through Ganin's website because I had typed in "INFJ" looking for MBTI stuff. I think that, for good or bad, most people get wind of socionics through MBTI. If all the sources switched to 3 letter type names, wouldn't this destroy a good 50% of our "advertising"?

Yes good arguments.

I would like to add, that everything would get a lot easyer when MBTI professionals start to realize they made an error in adding the underlying functions and fix it :-)

[FDG]

I am always going to use the 4-letter just because people say that we "should" use the 3 letters.

[Ritella]

I am always going to use the 4-letter just because people say that we "should" use the 3 letters.

way to be a rebel.

[Simon Ssmall]

I am always going to use the 4-letter just because people say that we "should" use the 3 letters.

+1

Not only should but they say you MUST !

[Creepy-Cyclops]

FIGHT THE SYSTEM!!!!!

Besides, the four letter system is easier to work with. Easier is better.. Myers and Briggs got it right.

[consentingadult]

MBTI tests seem to correlate judging and perceiving directly with rationality and irrationality.

At least for let's say 99%.

But not the 50% of the time that others claim.

Can you elaborate on that, e.g. by providing links to studies that prove this/ or is this only your own intuition?

[consentingadult]

...when MBTI professionals start to realize they made an error...

Won't happen, because it would be the end of MBTI as a commercial operation. And they would be 'forced' to accept the insight of Socionics, which wouldn't be as profitable as the MBTI mumbo jumbo.

The appeal of MBTI, and therefore its commercial success, very much depends on its erroneous theory. which allows people to see in it whatever they like.