Jung used dichotomies before he created functions. Try reading his book.Originally Posted by labcoat
Jung used dichotomies before he created functions. Try reading his book.
No. You don't understand the essence of socionics. People can't fall in between and the type of a person will never change.
"Type changes" and people who are "in between" are stupid inventions of MBTI practicioners. In socionics you are just the type you are. MBTI practicioners look for a "best fit" whereas socionists look for your true self.
Exactly. People should read more books. Some socionics enthusiasts don't even know Jung's work but think they can judge everything. Hilarious...
Last edited by JohnDo; 08-24-2010 at 07:55 AM.
MBTI defines the dichotomies differently than socionics, so when you combine that with the comparatively flimsy MBTI type descriptions, you actually can be one in MBTI and another in socionics.That's why wikisocion is on such a bad level. People with absolutely zero typing ability change articles there...
Using complete subtypes, I actually know a cute girl I type as ENFj-ISTp. But you can either be introverted or extraverted, either intuitive or sensing and so on. You can't be one in MBTI and the other in socionics. That's bogus...
False. MBTI and Socionics use different words to give the same definitions for the same four dichotomies. Not only is Sensing not Intuition, Sensing is the polar opposite of Intuition, and so on. This is why the test on Socionics.com looks like it is using MBTI dichotomies. It might as well be using them, for they are one and the same with Socionics dichotomies.
Just read the questions on these two tests. Notice that although different words are used, there is absolutely no difference in meaning:
http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo_xl.html
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I disagree with the wording that Ganin has used for that test.
Take a look at a better description of for instance I and E:
Socionics :: Extraversion / Introversion
*socionic extraversion does NOT equal outgoingness
*socionic introversion does NOT equal unsocialibility or shyness
"After studying the table above, it should be clear that socionics defines these terms differently than they are understood in modern psychology. After Jung the terms "extraversion" and "introversion" gradually took on a concrete meaning — extraverts are sociable individuals who are enjoy group activities and socializing, while introverts like to spend large amounts of time by themselves. Based on these definitions, it was found that 75% of Americans are extraverts, and 25% introverts. American culture values extraverted qualities more, and people often feel like they've been given the 'short end of the stick' after receiving their results on extraversion/introversion tests. Using socionic definitions of these terms, however, my experience has shown that the numbers are practically equal — not only in the U.S., but also in Ukraine, Russia, Spain, and other countries I have visited. With such differing results, it is obvious that socionic extraversion and introversion only somewhat overlap with modern psychological (and popular) definitions of the terms."
MBTI focuses on extraversion on the 'typical' means of outgoing sociable etc which is mainstream definitions. Questions like "You rapidly get involved in social life at a new workplace", "You feel at ease in a crowd", "It is easy for you to communicate in social situations" don't apply to a shy withdrawn E or an outgoing confident I.
Also I know some leading Te types who are not particularly shy, but they struggle to "communicate in social situations" if for instance because it's eg a primarilyenvironment (just one example of many) so it leads to different classifications and therefore different type results.
You forget that Introverted-Extroverted is a spectrum.
That should say:
Socionic Extraversion USUALLY equals outgoingness
Socionics Introversion USUALLY equals unsocalibility or shyness
The Spectrum
Clearly Expressed Introverts (Unsociable and Shy)
Extroverted Introverts (Sometimes Outgoing, but Normally Shy)
The Line Dividing Introversion and Extroversion
Introverted Extroverts (Sometimes Shy, but Normally Outgoing)
Clearly Expressed Extroverts (Outgoing)
MBTI only focused on the two clearly expressed extremes, because it is not explained well. Socionics makes sure the line that divides the two is focused on.
DeLong only said NOT because he was trying to unemphasize the extremes (the mistake MBTI made).
You are only describing a situation where an EXTj confuses a E/I dichotomy question for a T/F dichotomy question. The evidence is in what you wrote. This is not a mistake with what the dichotomies are ACTUALLY defined as. It's a mistake on how the question was WORDED.Also I know some leading Te types who are not particularly shy, but they struggle to "communicate in social situations" if for instance because it's eg a primarily
Last edited by Crispy; 08-24-2010 at 09:39 AM.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
It is perfectly plausible that a Socionics "introvert" is more "extroverted" (in Jungian terms) than a Socionics "extravert".
Ideally, when talking about "extraverts" and "introverts" in Socionics, the terms "extratims" and "introtims" should be used.
...and if you're talking about extraversion and introversion in the Jungian sense, you should realise that there is no strict 1:1 correlation with the extratim and introtim types.
What is the distinction between an extrovert and an extratim?
What is the distinction between an introvert and an intratim?
If it works according to my spectrum, how could the Extroverted Intratim possibly be more Extroverted (over the course of his life) than the Introverted Extratim. That is counter intuitive to what the dichotomy implies.
If it doesn't work according to my spectrum, why not? This spectrum is clearly stated in DCNH.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Well for one thing, they were described by different people, and for different purposes. With Myers Briggs extroversion\introversion, each person is seen as either outgoing or reserved, while in Socionics, the degree to which someone is responsive or involved depends on the information elements at play, and the exact nature of the setting.
You should be thinking of things more in terms of the Information Elements, rather than stricly "extroverted" vs. "introverted".
Myers Briggs doesn't utilise the theory of Information Metabolism, so naturally, there is a distinction between the two. There may be some similarities, just like there's some similarities between the Moon and the Sun, but it would be wrong to say they are exactly the same when they're not.
Also this is somwhat informative: http://socionist.blogspot.com/2006/1...chotomies.html
The emphasis though really should be on the functions...and subsequently, if you are an ILE, you are an "extratim".
So the same dichotomy is described by two different people, so it must actually be two different dichotomies because there's two different perspective's of it? Inconceivable. In reality there only ever existed one dichotomy of Introverted/Extroverted. The creators of both theories laid visage upon this dichotomy with their third eye and described it in two different ways. MBTI concentrated on the extreme extrovert/extreme introvert and socionics concentrated on the dividing line between extroverts/introverts.
The dichotomies are the foundation from which the elements form structure. If one is on the Introverted side of the spectrum, the information elements conform to this necessarily. Actually that would imply dependence. The two are really Interdependent, but the same rules apply. You can't be both. Ever.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Augusta didn't originally described the "same dichotomy" - she adapted Jung's functions and applied them to an adapted theory of Information Metabolism.
False, the information elements could exist without the dichotomies.
A needlessly condescending bad analogy. The similarities between the two (The Four Distinct Inseparable Dichotomies) form the basis for the exact differences between each of the 16 types in both theories. Even considering MBTI's false functions, all N types have weak Se and Si in both theories etc.
The emphasis doesn't matter. The functions and the dichotomies are locked together. If one changes, the other must follow by definition.
These quotes (especially the bold) describe problems in the subject's perception of themselves and how it changes, NOT problems with looking at dichotomies in general. In reality, your position on the Sensing - Intuition spectrum does not change after (birth/conception/whatever) and doesn't change before death. Whether or not your sociotype is embedded in your soul when you begin next life is up to debate, but in current form you are the same type forever, and on the same exact position on the spectrum's of the four dichotomies forever.The result of this approach is that people get used to thinking that they are "a little bit of both," that they "used to be more sensing than they are now," that they are "sometimes one, sometimes the other," etc.
Explain. This makes absolutely no sense to me
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
and the Sun and the Moon are both made out of matter. There are people who have views they claim are Socionics who would say that a Ni type also has fairly strong Se.
Socionics is a theory of type interaction, and information processing. Events can be explained in terms of the information elements and the types without resorting to the dichotomies.
exactly. Their criteria are so close, that maybe only 5% of the people would be able to score differently. 95% is the same.
oh at least you're not insulting niffweed on this occasion.
sauce?
no I have to protect people from your bullshit too.
I doubt you'd be able to get 95% of people scoring the same even between two "Socionic" models that utilised the extratim/introtim dichotomy, nevermind with MBTI.
If you generalised enough and put all people into two categories, e.g. people who jump off the top of waterfalls versus those who don't, and then have another typology where you put people into either those who think that jumping off waterfalls is cool, and those that don't, I'm sure there may well be some degree of correlation between the two typologies. But it does not mean that they are defining the exact same thing.
I'd say the rate of mistypings on I/E between socionics and MBTI is higher. It's not uncommon for IxFp to mistype as ExxP, and the reverse for ExTx.
You said they can exist without dichotomies, not explained without using them. If someone is using Creative Ne, their dichotomies are necessarily INXj. Likewise if someone is using Se as the Dominant Function, they are necessarily ESXp. The functions and dichotomies are interdependent and you explain nothing.
That is of course related to people's lack of self insight, and not due to the systems being any different. The average person who takes an MBTI or Socionics test once, will get the wrong type.
A lot of what you are telling me is wordy and without substance.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
If someone is using their Creative function, it is already understood in terms of that function's position in Model A.
Of course that's your opinion...
?
This is another bad analogy. Dichotomies like Thinking and Feeling are not arbitrary like the one you made up. They are part of an observed spectrum that interacts with other observed spectrums (E/I, N/S, and J/P) to create the functional positions of a socionics type. This however does not work as its described for MBTI types (it actually still does work, because MBTI types really use socionics functions).
If what you say is correct, and the functions don't rely on dichotomies for existence, then there is no reason an Introverted type couldn't use Se as the dominant function. Since this is impossible, your claim is false.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
That was an absurd generalisation to make it easy for you to appreciate the point. As I've already said, Augusta adapted the functions, and also explained them in terms of information metabolism, rather than in the more wordly way of Myers Briggs.
I mean in the sense that the functions are not defined by "the dichotomies". You are trying to impose the Myers Briggs dichotomy introversion\extroversion (which is used in the MBTI) onto the Socionics functions, which seen in terms of introtim or extratim types, do not correspond exactly with the Myers Briggs dichotomy introversion\extroversion.
I would argue they do. If they don't, describe to me the distinctions and how one person can be an introtim in one and an extrovert in the other. This person must carry introtim and extroverted traits without contradicting himself.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
What if an individual scores as ESFP in MBTI...but their strongest two functions by far in Socionics terms are Si and Fe? What type are they?
Socionics sees things in terms of Model A, and in terms of which functions an individual utilizes the most – any “dichotomies” are of lesser significance.
That one is easy. It's an ISFp that thinks (s)he's an ESFP from taking an MBTI test. However (s)he is ISFP in both because she has Dominant Si and is introverted.
Since (s)he rated ESFP it's safe to assume the ISFp is either D-ISFp or C-ISFp in DCNH.
Socionics dichotomies and functions are strictly of equal significance since changing one changes the other.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Well I know they should be a SEI, but according to MBTI dichotomies, they'd be an ESFP, unless you refine the test and score based on the Jungian functions rather than than the dichotomies.
Interesting discussion.
To add, I know of someone who has been typed by publishing socionists as an SLE, yet also typed by the official paid for MBTI test with follow ups by an MBTI practitioner which officially types the individual as an INTP.
Augusta said in The Dual Nature of Man that "We have substituted the now widespread terms "extravert/introvert" for Jung's "extraverted/introverted," though we think the terms "extratim/introtim" — by analogy with Kretschmer's "shizotyme/cyclotyme" — would be more appropriate, since the terms "extravert" and "introvert" have become ambiguous ever since Eysenck's tests started the trend towards calling every outgoing individual an extravert and every reserved individual an introvert."
-likewise, the MBTI also made a departure from Jung....and even Socionics is a modification.
I understand that the two theories describe extroversion and introversion differently. Let's say there's a 1 to 10 scale of extroversion.
Introverted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Extroverted
MBTI descriptions emphasize positions 1, 2, 9, and 10 on the spectrum.
Anyone who is 3 4 5 6 7 or 8 on the spectrum is likely to be confused with the ambiguity of the questions and has a 50% chance of scoring on the wrong dichotomy for extroverted/introverted.
Socionics however clearly describes the line (lets call it 5.5) dividing the two, and what constitutes being on either side. It is 10X easier to determine Extroversion/Introversion using socionics descriptions of the dichotomy.
In 90% (mentally estimated) situations where people report two different types, the socionics type is correct and the MBTI isn't. This is due to the differing quality of dichotomy descriptions, and not to differing meaning of the dichotomies.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Whether you like it or not, the MBTI method (which is their dichotomies) of typing can and does produce different results than socionics typing.
However, if you want to say that MBTI dichotomies are the same as socionic dichotomies, really 100% the same, then scientifically you have to question the validity of socionics as much as MBTI.
eh I've really seen no evidence to see that is anything like that high...and that doesn't take into account people who end up with the same type purely by chance, and the number of people who have a correct MBTI type but the wrong Socionics type - I don't know why you seem to presume that the individual's Socionics type is correct...and I'm at a loss to see how you think Socionics descriptions are such a magnitude clearer than MBTI ones.
Yes...that reminds me of the study where an attempt was made to see how well the MBTI type descriptions matched up with Scocionics type descriptions. Not strictly to do with the E\I dichotomy, but some of the 'correlations' were startling.
This might be interesting to yourself, along with others and the discussion in general
http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/...eyMBTI2001.pdf
It's typing people from MBTI, ie the 4 MBTI dichotomies. Actual scientific testing of MBTI dichotomies.
As I understand it, the research doesn't indicate that the MBTI dichotomies as truly 'dichotomous'. If they were in fact dichotomous the results from a large sample would show a bimodal (two-hump) distribution. Instead one has a standard bell curve which suggests that people vary continuously on all the MBTI dichotomies... and most people cluster in the middle of the curve.
So I think a possible solution, is that essentially we have to use functions to achieve results which can still have the potential to be empirically verified, ie the level of differentiation people exhibit in their functions (ie socionics ego block). Of course, if we were to say that MBTI dichotomies are the same as socionics dichotomies, then although not conclusive, it's certainly discouraging to those who'd like to see socionics become scientifically verified.
As it stands, the dichotomies of socionics are certainly applied differently, and with subtle yet crucial differences of definitions (as already discussed, at least with I/E) so perhaps using the socionics dichotomies would produce more encouraging results in such a test.
Putting it simpler, working with how MBTI dichotomies are applied, we have someone who eg might be outgoing (sometimes MBTI 'I' sometimes 'E') likes to read Scientific America (so probably 'N' but also 'S') and so forth. Whether that's a fault in MBTI applying it's own dichotomies is irrelevant, as it's how MBTI is at least now defined and applies itself, and therefore it's different from socionics - not least on dichotomies, but crucially functions and their differentiation ie 4D, 3D etc.
I thought i'd add another analogy. One should be wary of comparing an apple to an orange simply because they are fruits, yes, they are similar, but they are also rather different.
Last edited by Words; 08-24-2010 at 03:20 PM.
It HAS a bimodal distribution. I've seen it in one of my mbti books.
That study has been debunked.
You saying so doesn't count as a source.
I can well imagine it being in one of the MBTI books you have.
However, if you read the study, you will see that the past reports such as that you mention, were artifacts caused by BILOG's default use of a small number of quadrature points. When larger numbers were used, score numbers are actually strongly centre-weighted.
Instead of using the small (10 quadrature points) of the study you have read about, carried out in 1994, this one uses the full 50 which is the maximum quadrature points. This study is more recent than the one you refer to.
I'm not a mathematician, but you can read the article, in a nutshell, the data used previously was calculated incorrectly. The reality is that we have to accept that we now know that there simply isn't a bimodal distribution with all the MBTI dimensions.
Last edited by Words; 08-24-2010 at 06:25 PM.
It's been debunked in this thread.
Go back and read the rest of it.
If you read the 16 descriptions in both theories, it' blatantly obvious which is more clear.
Descriptions aside, as stand alone theories, socionic's type can be proved by typing those around you and looking at your relations between those people. MBTI stand-alone can't be proved with shit. When you correlate socionics and MBTI type, and change the MBTI to match the socionics type, MBTI type can now be proved with socionics intertype relations. That is the deciding factor as to which is ultimately clear and which isn't.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I apologize for my disrespect of the usual norms saying one should not hijack threads nor cross-post, but I caught Crispy in the SLOAN thread and spent the whole night writing my points of view down.
I'd like the adult persons in this thread to join us there to continue this discussion, I'm sorry for the long read but I tried to be as clear as I could.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...socionics.html
"Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."
C. G. Jung
-----
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
