Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Personality Typing - Like Linguistics

  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 Personality Typing - Like Linguistics

    I've studied linguistics - to a limited extent - and I've found that there is an interesting similarity between personality typing and linguistics. Speech patterns can be broken down from broad categories to more isolated categories. The most broad category of speech is a language. However, there are close deviations from specific languagues - these are dialects. Further, different languages can have a relationship - e.g., by descending from a common language. Also, within dialects, there are idiolects - the peculiarities of a specific individual's speech.

    From studying socionics, I've noticed that personality typing follows a similar pattern. Just as different languages can be related, different personality typing systems can be related (e.g., the MBTI and socionics). Further, within each personality typing system, there are different movements (e.g., Filatova's interpretation, socionix, etc.); these are like dialects. Finally, every individual socionist has their own interpretation; these are like idiolects.

    What does this mean? Well, just as there might be a different word for "soap" in different languages, dialects, or idiolects, a particular function or typing can be different to different individual socionists. This makes me wonder: if different socionists type people differently, does one have an "official" type? Well, unlike languages, socionics is not arbitrary; while the word "soap" could be used as a symbol for anything, Ne characteristics would not normally be confused with Se characteristics. However, there is still a certain degree of ambiguity in socionics. For example, what one socionist will classify as Ne behaviour, another might classify as Ni behaviour. The question is which classification is more accurate, but the problem is that socionics concepts are vague enough that there is a certain margin of error; we cannot understand human behaviour well enough to separate Ni behaviour from Ne behaviour all the time, with 100% accuracy. In other words, you can't always come to a clear answer about someone's type - even your own. How often does this happen? This depends on the degree of difference amongst the descriptions. And from reading many descriptions, I've noticed that socionics can be quite inconsistent, so I would expect it to happen fairly often.

    Keep this in mind if you're having difficulties determining your type, as it's sometimes better to draw no conclusion than an arbitrary one (or maybe a more general conclusion, such as being an Alpha, as opposed to being an LII).

    The solution to this problem would be for socionics to provide more consistency, and this would be achieved through empirically derived standards similar to what the MBTI has done, but without turning socionics into a testing business.

    Jason
    LII

  2. #2
    pluie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4 sx
    Posts
    300
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I've studied linguistics - to a limited extent - and I've found that there is an interesting similarity between personality typing and linguistics. Speech patterns can be broken down from broad categories to more isolated categories. The most broad category of speech is a language. However, there are close deviations from specific languagues - these are dialects. Further, different languages can have a relationship - e.g., by descending from a common language. Also, within dialects, there are idiolects - the peculiarities of a specific individual's speech.

    From studying socionics, I've noticed that personality typing follows a similar pattern. Just as different languages can be related, different personality typing systems can be related (e.g., the MBTI and socionics). Further, within each personality typing system, there are different movements (e.g., Filatova's interpretation, socionix, etc.); these are like dialects. Finally, every individual socionist has their own interpretation; these are like idiolects.

    What does this mean? Well, just as there might be a different word for "soap" in different languages, dialects, or idiolects, a particular function or typing can be different to different individual socionists. This makes me wonder: if different socionists type people differently, does one have an "official" type? Well, unlike languages, socionics is not arbitrary; while the word "soap" could be used as a symbol for anything, Ne characteristics would not normally be confused with Se characteristics. However, there is still a certain degree of ambiguity in socionics. For example, what one socionist will classify as Ne behaviour, another might classify as Ni behaviour. The question is which classification is more accurate, but the problem is that socionics concepts are vague enough that there is a certain margin of error; we cannot understand human behaviour well enough to separate Ni behaviour from Ne behaviour all the time, with 100% accuracy. In other words, you can't always come to a clear answer about someone's type - even your own. How often does this happen? This depends on the degree of difference amongst the descriptions. And from reading many descriptions, I've noticed that socionics can be quite inconsistent, so I would expect it to happen fairly often.

    Keep this in mind if you're having difficulties determining your type, as it's sometimes better to draw no conclusion than an arbitrary one (or maybe a more general conclusion, such as being an Alpha, as opposed to being an LII).

    The solution to this problem would be for socionics to provide more consistency, and this would be achieved through empirically derived standards similar to what the MBTI has done, but without turning socionics into a testing business.

    Jason
    this is the reason (or at least, from my perspective it at least SHOULD BE the reason) that forums like this one are formed-- to find that sort of common ground. we all share ideas and opinions, and search for that bridge of understanding that aligns all of our perceptions of the 8 functions. through discussion and speculation, we can (try at least-- if it exists) to discover a sort of fundamental understanding of each function. this way we have a core, and therefore a stable theory of how to distinguish the different psychological perceptions. (i feel "personality" is too much of a subjective term for the 16 types)
    "If you can find out little melodies for yourself on the piano it is all very well. But if they come of themselves when you are not at the piano, then you have still greater reason to rejoice; for then the inner sense of music is astir in you. The fingers must make what the head wills, not vice versa."- Robert Schumann

  3. #3
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Excellent.

    Yes, I've been trying to find a common ground for some time, but I've gotten frustrated lately - largely due to that "margin of error."

    Now, the trouble with standards is exactly MBTI's problem: it's so incredibly difficult to come up with specified standards that aren't fundamentally wrong. At least while Socionics is a fog, the truth is actually somewhere in the fog. What happens if we pinpoint it and miss?

    Neuroscience is, of course, the answer. Unfortunately, it is not a quick solution.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  4. #4
    pluie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4 sx
    Posts
    300
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ewww neuroscience *cringes*

    that involves... tangible stuff. lol.

    idk-- one of the main reasons socionics is so appealing to me is because it seems to focus on the human psyche... not the BRAIN so much. the biophysical technicalities and such... bore me.

    *sigh* i see where you're going though. i think.

    glad people are aware of this situation
    "If you can find out little melodies for yourself on the piano it is all very well. But if they come of themselves when you are not at the piano, then you have still greater reason to rejoice; for then the inner sense of music is astir in you. The fingers must make what the head wills, not vice versa."- Robert Schumann

  5. #5
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, and even if there were an "official" typing for someone or an "official" word to use in a situation, it would be based upon an "official" system, theory or language, and that would imply perfection of the system.

  6. #6
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Neuroscience is, of course, the answer. Unfortunately, it is not a quick solution.
    Neuroscience is ridiculously slow and the data generated are near impossible to interpret at present. If they still can't work out the chemical basis of something as supposedly organic as schizophrenia, they're not going to work out personality until...hmm...65986, I bet.

    Any takers? :tongue:
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

Posting Permissions

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