Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Project: etalon database COMPLETE!

  1. #1
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Smile Project: etalon database COMPLETE!

    Just visit my channel
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Yaaroslav?feature=mhee#p/u
    and search in 4-letters mode: For example "ENFP" - you will
    Lots of socionists telling us that they can identify type without mistake. Many socionists have its own database and consider that their typing is true.

    I tell to anyone: I am not so as most of them. I recognize that I can do mistake. But I also do everything(and also have lots already done!) to minimize it!

    The main difference between of my database and database of other socionists are The highest logical redundancy of proof.

    So why I considered that my database - are etalon?

    I had been completed 2 huge video-analitical projets
    Reinins dichotomies: QuesTIM - DeklaTIM
    http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.p...55484#p1055484

    and "Positivists - Negativists"
    http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.php?f=588&t=40309


    most of the people, who entered to this base - are the well known socionists with already, and qualitative identified types. They were: Goulenko, Boukalov, Udalova. So that are the best prerequisites for you to trust my research data.

    From all these men you may find the characteristics not only from Jung basis - but also from these experimentally confirmed dychotomies.
    I had also worked to make these dichotomies more contrast as it possible, seeking for new criteria which can increase the skill level anyone to identify them - so I did everything to make these dichotomies sense which can provide probability of true typing the same or better than Jung Basis dichotomies had been already researched

    What does is that mean?
    to simplify the calculations - I will make equal all values of probability of true typing, and set them to the 0,85
    So we have:
    Before
    E N T P
    P = E-I*N-S*T-F*P-J = 0,522

    After
    E N T P Q +
    But remember!
    Only after you provide research about sense of new dichotomies, only after you provide research of contrast of new dichotomies which can provide probability of true typing the same or better than Jung Basis only after that - you can consider that you dichotomies, that you own in practice
    are equal to the Jung dichotomies.
    So. Back to the example:

    E N T P Q +

    Dichotomies E N T - are connected to dichotomies Q +, So 1 time mistake will do not cause the mistake in total type identification
    These variants are 5
    1 time mistake in a P - will cause the result: "Type not identified"

    2 times mistake:
    There are 6C2 = 15 variants of 2 time mistakes
    when a 2 time mistakes happening in Basis 4C2 = 6
    = They will cause total mistake in typing
    when a 2 time mistakes happening: 1 in Basis and 1 in Q or "+" than we will have also a total mistake in typing. These variants are 2*4C1 = 8
    The variant of two time mistake in Q and + will cause result: "Type not identified" These variants: 1


    Other variants will give us results as "mistake" or "Type not identified". There are 6C3 + 6C4 + 6C5 + 6C6 = 42 variants
    To simplify rest logical steps lets consider all these variants as a "mistake"
    So. Lest calculate what do we have
    Probability without mistake: 0,85^6 = 0,37715
    1 mistake: 5*0,85^5*0,1 = 0,22185
    Total probability to of true typing = 0,599
    Not identified:0,85^5*0,1+ 0,85^4*0,1^2 = 0,0495
    mistake = 1 - 0,599 - 0,0495 = 0,3515
    Excluding variants "not identified"

    After
    Total probability of true typing = 0,599/(1 - 0,0495) = 0,63019
    Mistake = 0,36981
    Progress is significant!


    In general, I own 10 dichotomies on the same level of Quality - but that is the question of further works
    Using by calculator Reinin dichotomies which was created by me, calculating the same way - I had been achieved Total probability of true typing about 95%. Practical experiments shown me the same think: usually I'm finding mistake of my typing in every 20th cases.
    Also: if you want a calculator - I will send you.
    It calls: Calc2008.txt
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  2. #2
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaaroslav View Post
    Just visit my channel
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Yaaroslav?feature=mhee#p/u
    and search in 4-letters mode: For example "ENFP" - you will
    Lots of socionists telling us that they can identify type without mistake. Many socionists have its own database and consider that their typing is true.

    I tell to anyone: I am not so as most of them. I recognize that I can do mistake. But I also do everything(and also have lots already done!) to minimize it!

    The main difference between of my database and database of other socionists are The highest logical redundancy of proof.

    So why I considered that my database - are etalon?

    I had been completed 2 huge video-analitical projets
    Reinins dichotomies: QuesTIM - DeklaTIM
    http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.p...55484#p1055484

    and "Positivists - Negativists"
    http://www.socioforum.su/viewtopic.php?f=588&t=40309


    most of the people, who entered to this base - are the well known socionists with already, and qualitative identified types. They were: Goulenko, Boukalov, Udalova. So that are the best prerequisites for you to trust my research data.

    From all these men you may find the characteristics not only from Jung basis - but also from these experimentally confirmed dychotomies.
    I had also worked to make these dichotomies more contrast as it possible, seeking for new criteria which can increase the skill level anyone to identify them - so I did everything to make these dichotomies sense which can provide probability of true typing the same or better than Jung Basis dichotomies had been already researched

    What does is that mean?
    to simplify the calculations - I will make equal all values of probability of true typing, and set them to the 0,85
    So we have:
    Before
    E N T P
    P = E-I*N-S*T-F*P-J = 0,522

    After
    E N T P Q +
    But remember!
    Only after you provide research about sense of new dichotomies, only after you provide research of contrast of new dichotomies which can provide probability of true typing the same or better than Jung Basis only after that - you can consider that you dichotomies, that you own in practice
    are equal to the Jung dichotomies.
    So. Back to the example:

    E N T P Q +

    Dichotomies E N T - are connected to dichotomies Q +, So 1 time mistake will do not cause the mistake in total type identification
    These variants are 5
    1 time mistake in a P - will cause the result: "Type not identified"

    2 times mistake:
    There are 6C2 = 15 variants of 2 time mistakes
    when a 2 time mistakes happening in Basis 4C2 = 6
    = They will cause total mistake in typing
    when a 2 time mistakes happening: 1 in Basis and 1 in Q or "+" than we will have also a total mistake in typing. These variants are 2*4C1 = 8
    The variant of two time mistake in Q and + will cause result: "Type not identified" These variants: 1


    Other variants will give us results as "mistake" or "Type not identified". There are 6C3 + 6C4 + 6C5 + 6C6 = 42 variants
    To simplify rest logical steps lets consider all these variants as a "mistake"
    So. Lest calculate what do we have
    Probability without mistake: 0,85^6 = 0,37715
    1 mistake: 5*0,85^5*0,1 = 0,22185
    Total probability to of true typing = 0,599
    Not identified:0,85^5*0,1+ 0,85^4*0,1^2 = 0,0495
    mistake = 1 - 0,599 - 0,0495 = 0,3515
    Excluding variants "not identified"

    After
    Total probability of true typing = 0,599/(1 - 0,0495) = 0,63019
    Mistake = 0,36981
    Progress is significant!


    In general, I own 10 dichotomies on the same level of Quality - but that is the question of further works
    Using by calculator Reinin dichotomies which was created by me, calculating the same way - I had been achieved Total probability of true typing about 95%. Practical experiments shown me the same think: usually I'm finding mistake of my typing in every 20th cases.
    Also: if you want a calculator - I will send you.
    It calls: Calc2008.txt


    People should pay attention to him

  3. #3
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmm I don't see any reference to the premises of such calculations. Namely the correct interpretation of the empirical data in order to call these typings correct. From what I know, the Reinin dichotomies alone have varied (and contrasting) interpretations, which of them were experimentally confirmed and by who?

    I also don't get it why is it necessary to take the typings of several socionists as a reference, instead of arbitrary personalities for good reasons. IIRC there is no consensus on the type of many Socionists (even Aushra's type was disputed), I detect a huge leap of faith necessary in order to take them as sufficient prequisites. Unless I'm missing something, what you're asking for is along the lines of "let's assume that the self-typings of these socionists are correct and start off them". Apparently the fame in the field of these subjects is the base justification for this idea, on the other hand their other typings are dismissed. The cherry-picking fallacy.

    Going further, even if we assume these typings are absolutely true, where's the justification that *the other types* in the database are correct? They are made by you. There are a lot of people who agree on the self-typings of socionists but they still disagree with each other in typing third parties - in fact I think this is the most common case.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  4. #4
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Hmm I don't see any reference to the premises of such calculations. Namely the correct interpretation of the empirical data in order to call these typings correct. From what I know, the Reinin dichotomies alone have varied (and contrasting) interpretations, which of them were experimentally confirmed and by who?
    It's a very long question. I can tell you about of real problems of the Reinin dychotomies. About experiments of lots of the socionists such as: Talanov, Mironov, Aushra, Me(Yaroslav Polozov) with Boukalov. And the real achievements.
    Which way you are interested?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    I also don't get it why is it necessary to take the typings of several socionists as a reference, instead of arbitrary personalities for good reasons.
    You are not in the position to consider these cases are "equal" "=". They are not equal. "<>"
    - And that is your fatal mistake in your arguments.
    I know that the not all of the main socionists have been true identified their socionic types. But the probability of mistake from arbitrary personalities - are higher, because of their much more lower level of socionic knowledge, theoretical and practical achievement...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post

    IIRC there is no consensus on the type of many Socionists (even Aushra's type was disputed), I detect a huge leap of faith necessary in order to take them as sufficient prequisites. Unless I'm missing something, what you're asking for is along the lines of "let's assume that the self-typings of these socionists are correct and start off them". Apparently the fame in the field of these subjects is the base justification for this idea, on the other hand their other typings are dismissed. The cherry-picking fallacy.
    I know that there are many factors which are distorting the accuracy of typing, and this including, but reached a logical redundancy allowed the chance neutralize error.
    About of socionists: I had chosen only their, who types was confirmed by my methods. Also These socionists were a minimal doubt from others about of their types. That means that you have to trust me.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Going further, even if we assume these typings are absolutely true, where's the justification that *the other types* in the database are correct? They are made by you. There are a lot of people who agree on the self-typings of socionists but they still disagree with each other in typing third parties - in fact I think this is the most common case.
    My work of them - is a short cutted video about them to show all of you that these dichotomies (Q-D, + -) are exists, but I also have a long video where you may sure that all of these men - the rest of my database - are typed true.
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  5. #5
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Exclamation

    It was passed more than one week. But "The Ineffable" is still being silent. It makes me annoyed!!! I had spend lots of efforts for him. And nothing! Nothing! Nothing!!!
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  6. #6
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It annoys me when others dont respond to me also, especially if I feel your giving them your energy.

    I dont get however your capitaliztion of the fourth letter in your spelling out of the types. For instance you write "ENFP" instead of the correct socionics writing "ENFp". Why?

  7. #7
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    It annoys me when others dont respond to me also, especially if I feel your giving them your energy.

    I dont get however your capitaliztion of the fourth letter in your spelling out of the types. For instance you write "ENFP" instead of the correct socionics writing "ENFp". Why?
    This is due to the fact that I used to write so. And this way of writing I learned from old editions. But I have another question: Why do small register 4 letter?
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  8. #8
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If I understand your question correctly, the fourth letter is small to distinguish j/p in socionics(irrationality and rationality) from J/P in MBTI, which isnt the same thing.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    The Inffetible takes months to respond, you're better off getting completely drunk.

  10. #10
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I WILL answer, just I'm currently too busy with a lot of shit and I don't know what to do first... I can't just sit down and "write", WTF? I need to think, recall things, be in the mood, etc - have inspiration. You are Ej's and you don't understand this anyway.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  11. #11
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    If I understand your question correctly, the fourth letter is small to distinguish j/p in socionics(irrationality and rationality) from J/P in MBTI, which isnt the same thing.
    The socionics and the MBTI are not the same thinks. According to these logic - all 4 letters would be written in the anouther way. But why only 4 th?
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  12. #12
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaaroslav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    If I understand your question correctly, the fourth letter is small to distinguish j/p in socionics(irrationality and rationality) from J/P in MBTI, which isnt the same thing.
    The socionics and the MBTI are not the same thinks. According to these logic - all 4 letters would be written in the anouther way. But why only 4 th?
    BECAUSE socionics is NOT the same thing as MBTI.

    LearnToDoEnglishSpeak

  13. #13
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Yaaroslav View Post
    The socionics and the MBTI are not the same thinks. According to these logic - all 4 letters would be written in the anouther way. But why only 4 th?
    BECAUSE socionics is NOT the same thing as MBTI.

    LearnToDoEnglishSpeak
    No. There must be another explanation which contains some another rule. But perhaps this remark is just attempt someone to F.. the brain...
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  14. #14
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    *facepalms*

  15. #15
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is only One Reason we continue to lower-case the last letter up until today (INTj, ESFp etc.)

    It is because the socionics website most/all of us saw first was: http://www.socionics.com/

    Since Everyone saw that first, we have adopted it's practice.

    Later rumors came in that the reason we do it is to differentiate between socionics and MBTI because they are "completely different".

    The truth is that the dichotomies in both systems represent the exact same ideas, but MBTI Functions are broken and Socionics Functions are working due to intertype relations.

    edit: redundancy
    Last edited by Crispy; 07-29-2011 at 04:32 AM.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  16. #16
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,632
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    There is only One Reason we continue to lower-case the last letter up until today (INTj, ESFp etc.)

    It is because the first socionics website most/all of us saw first was: http://www.socionics.com/

    Since Everyone saw that first, we have adopted it's practice.

    Later rumors came in that the reason we do it is to differentiate between socionics and MBTI because they are "completely different".

    The truth is that the dichotomies in both systems represent the exact same ideas, but MBTI Functions are broken and Socionics Functions are working due to intertype relations.
    MBTI doesn't exist independent of MBTI functions, nor does Socionics exist independent of IM elements; and neither really fit their dichotomies properly, mostly because of 1) tertiary creep, and 2) the system makers not really bothering to precisely map a direct connection between functions and dichotomies (Myers, being valuing, didn't even care).

    Socionics is, in fact, especially egregious in this aspect -- the dichotomies are basically something like MBTI dichotomies, and have nothing to do with the actual manner in which extroversion/introversion are separated for each function. So you get atrocities like a convincing argument being made that Hitler was ENFp, based on dichotomies). In fairness, however, it would be exceedingly difficult to actually create an E/I dichotomy that'd make sense to people taking a dichotomy test. A better separator for the divergent attitudes of Socionics functions is probably Static/Dynamic.
    Last edited by Aleksei; 07-29-2011 at 02:24 AM.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov

  17. #17
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The dichotomies of Socionics can be interpreted by taking the commonality between functions.

    ie.
    E is the commonality between Xe, it's objects, action, interaction
    N is the commonality between Ne and Ni, it's away from reality, the missing parts
    etc.

    The easiest to understand are N/S and T/F, which is why the clubs are straightforward. Most MBTI E/I and J/P association carries over to Socionics, but people get mistyped because of wrong MBTI functions.
    Last edited by 717495; 07-29-2011 at 03:47 AM.

  18. #18
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why do you care if Ineffable responds to you or not?

  19. #19
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    The truth is that the dichotomies in both systems represent the exact same ideas, but MBTI Functions are broken and Socionics Functions are working due to intertype relations.
    This is incorrect. It's just you who refuse to make the difference. There are countless explanations for when and why they differ, you should not even be allowed to talk. All known Socionists acknowledged the differences (Aushra, Gulenko, Lytov, etc), what you say was never the case.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  20. #20
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Why do you care if Ineffable responds to you or not?
    The Innefable may be harsh or may hold strong opinions, but I prefer to listen to someone who is smart instead of listening to a nice idiot.
    ETA: this is my opinion, irrespective of his opinion on me.
    Last edited by 1981slater; 07-29-2011 at 12:34 PM.
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  21. #21
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    All known Socionists acknowledged the differences (Aushra, Gulenko, Lytov, etc), what you say was never the case.
    Here is a quote of Gulenko explaining why Rational types in Socionics are called Judging types in MBTI, and why Irrational types in Socionics are called Perceiving types in MBTI.

    Source: http://translate.googleusercontent.c...-X4_Df7PetSCDw
    Context: An article explaining the differences between Socionics Rationals and Irrationals.
    4. Info level
    Mental (thinking) process these types of people organized on the opposite way. (The American Type Myers' Briggs) is called rational saner (judging) type, because they tend to talk extensively and consistently on any one topic. They present their thoughts coherently, clearly constructed sentences, consistent in his statements. However, they are little susceptible to the fact that contrary to the basic line of reasoning.

    (The American Type Myers' Briggs) irrational types are called perceiving (perceiving), because they see the world as a whole picture. From their attention not escape the facts or observations that are not linked to any rational cause-effect relationship, but simply appear simultaneously and inseparably. But it is difficult to argue long irrational, analyzing the same theme being distracted by their association, they lose the thread of the original arguments.

    Rational communicate with others through speech and hearing, and with itself "through visual representation. This man is always discrete (ous): the phrase is divided into sentences, the sentence" into words. Understand anything about rational "is to present visually to its internal screen.

    For the irrational is very characteristic of inner speech, which they use to understand the problem. In the external communication words fade into the background: to formulate his thoughts deployed phrases it is difficult. But good work non-verbal means, especially vision. Irrational to effectively communicate with each other, demonstrating and observing, touching, and responding to touch.
    Notice how he doesn't differentiate between the Rational type or the Judging type but treats them as the same entity (and the same for the Irrational and Perceiving type). Therefore if you are rational in socionics, Gulenko believes you are judging in MBTI and visa versa. If you are irrational in socionics, Gulenko believes you are perceiving in MBTI and visa versa.

    Now I suppose you must have a quote of your own with Gulenko contradicting himself, right?
    Last edited by Crispy; 07-29-2011 at 05:36 PM.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  22. #22
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Crispy, you're fucking wrong! The types are called "the same" based on a comparison table that was created by the MBTI Russian adherents. Basically, when we compare Socionics to MBTI, we call the "same type" what was assumed to be the same Jungian type described by both systems, though there are always differences - which means that they are not the same type in reality, they just correlate. It's like fake gold and fake silver VS true gold and true silver, you obviously compare "the same" materials, aka fake gold to gold and fake silver to silver.

    In this case, the "same type" is just a label to compare the closest possible types across the two systems. Namely, you won't compare ISTP to EIE, but with the closest one, SLI. That does not mean that SLI = ISTP, in fact that always was the purpose of these discussions, to point out these differences. Officially, Socionics is not MBTI, whatever you do, so if you don't acknowledge the differences you're out of it, period. However, I don't mind to FUCKING REMIND YOU the most important of these differences:
    - Rational/Schizotim is in Jung/Socionics the type that has a primary function as T or F. MBTI is wrong/different about this, where ISTP is Ti-base, not only it is Rational, but also a Ti Ego (instead of Te). [1]
    - I/E in MBTI is social extroversion. In MBTI there are no talkative or outgoing Introverts and the vice-versa, in Socionics there are. Now do the math and check whether you get the same types, not in number, but in traits.
    - Socionics is based on cognition, MBTI on behavior and social roles.

    Note that your link is not proper, it points at a different page or something. I based my claims about Gulenko on this article: http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/gulenko-mbti.html.
    ---

    [1] - FTR, the latter does not come in contradiction with Jung, but comes with Socionics.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  23. #23
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Exclamation

    Hey! Anyone! There is a big confusion as I see:
    http://mbti.on.ufanet.ru/index-2.html
    http://www.mental-skills.ru/synopses/11839.html
    The first side,
    The second side:
    http://www.socionika.info/tip/lii.html
    http://www.socionika.info/tip/ili.html
    Perhaps. I should do nothing... Relax!!!...
    So I will write as I like it, because: all 4 letters are visible when I write them in a big register.

    All 4 letters are shows 4 basic dichotomies, and: in compare with a 3 letters it is shown the dichotomies in the same order, so it is decreasing the chance to confuse type.
    Also: I consider that the MBTI typology is incorrect because: If type of person belong to Perceiving Pole, so that means that dominant Function must be Perceiving. Example INTP in MBTI considered that
    Dominant Funcktion: Ti
    Auxiliary: Ne
    third(Perhaps analogue f6 from Model A, but not f4 as in model Jung): Si
    Inferior: Fe

    But: Ti - is a Judging function so it can not be as a dominant function for perceiving types.
    MBTI - FALCE. Jung - RULES!
    Last edited by Yaaroslav; 07-29-2011 at 08:43 PM.
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  24. #24
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Smile

    Also: I have some Idea to solve this problem:
    Lets change in MBTI typology dichotomy P - J to the dichotomy Static - Dynamic. And name it by the letters: Static - "A"
    Dynamic - "O" according to http://laser.info-esta.ru/
    So. "Perceiving" in MBTI - are the Static, and "Junging" are the Dynamic
    - then:
    INTP -> INTA = Robespierre. Correct
    INTJ -> INTO = Balzac. Correct
    Everything is fine!
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  25. #25
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaaroslav View Post
    Ive seen this page before. I wondered what the "O" and "A" stood for. Now I know. I dont think this is a bad idea but...Im too used to rational/irrational dichotomies to do this change. Plus I dont think that using Static/Dynamic is a good idead because 1) it gets too complicated) 2) Reinin dichotomies were just an experimental theory by Gregori Reinin, which werent meant to be taken seriosuly but for some reason everyone did.
    Last edited by Typhon; 07-30-2011 at 02:40 AM.

  26. #26
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Whoever created that page, http://ru.laser.ru, typed me SLI

  27. #27
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If MBTI and Socionics were the same, they would have made an individual discovery that duals of perceiving and the rest different have successful relations, where functions often aren't even referred to. The fact is, all the marriage and relation statistics on MBTI types point to Ns going the best with one another, and Ss going the best with one another. There is no affirmation anywhere that the former case is true, ie. in MBTI history that ESFJ goes with INTJ, etc. Most INTJs I talk to dislike ESFJ and marriage statistics show its a bad relation. As well as MBTI distribution is way off compared to Socionics. INTJ only 1% of the population, supposed to be duals with a type who is 15% of the population? So I'm sure you could look at all introverted types around MBTI and find some LIIs. It's not 1%. You also see statistics of N-N, you should try to find a dual who has and , but also strength in N of MBTI. Because even if ESE but strong S, you won't have the best communication: in Keirsey they call the N types "abstract" communicators.

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poli View Post
    If MBTI and Socionics were the same, they would have made an individual discovery that duals of perceiving and the rest different have successful relations, where functions often aren't even referred to. The fact is, all the marriage and relation statistics on MBTI types point to Ns going the best with one another, and Ss going the best with one another. There is no affirmation anywhere that the former case is true, ie. in MBTI history that ESFJ goes with INTJ, etc. Most INTJs I talk to dislike ESFJ and marriage statistics show its a bad relation. As well as MBTI distribution is way off compared to Socionics. INTJ only 1% of the population, supposed to be duals with a type who is 15% of the population? So I'm sure you could look at all introverted types around MBTI and find some LIIs. It's not 1%. You also see statistics of N-N, you should try to find a dual who has and , but also strength in N of MBTI. Because even if ESE but strong S, you won't have the best communication: in Keirsey they call the N types "abstract" communicators.
    No they wouldn't have. That wasn't their goal. Socionics is a psychologist's tool; MBTI is a HR manager's. It just so happens Jung's types can be used for both purposes.

  29. #29
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    No they wouldn't have. That wasn't their goal. Socionics is a psychologist's tool; MBTI is a HR manager's. It just so happens Jung's types can be used for both purposes.
    You say Jung's types, as though something like Ti is supposed to fit into both INTP and Socionics INTj. Well let me remind that Myers and Briggs theory was that opposite types would have the best relationship, pairing the same functions of duality, ie. INTP with Ti best matched with the ESFJ with Fe. This idea was already originated before Socionics. Well, it did originate, but after years of observation it was debunked and we noticed the opposite happening, that N and S types were having many more poor relationships with one other, and Ti wasn't much a saving grace for an ESFJ when it's used by an INTP. And like already stated, neither was INTJ much of a help statistically and experientially. Experientially, none of them I know have good things to say about ESFJs, as mothers and acquaintances. So even if one INTP was an LII and the ESFJ was an ESE, statistically and experientially speaking, it would be right to assume there would be more communication and value/interest problems, among other things, than if they were both Ns or both Ss. If I could find anything statistical or from my experience to say otherwise, I would. There is only Socionics, which in the West often gets confused as MBTI. They are independent but not mutually exclusive.

  30. #30
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Yaaroslav View Post
    Ive seen this page before. I wondered what the "O" and "A" stood for. Now I know. I dont think this is a bad idea but...Im too used to rational/irrational dichotomies to do this change. Plus I dont think that using Static/Dynamic is a good idead because 1) it gets too complicated) 2) Reinin dichotomies were just an experimental theory by Gregori Reinin, which werent meant to be taken seriosuly but for some reason everyone did.
    The Authors answered Why did they called this dichotomy that way
    http://sss.info-esta.ru/forum/viewto...5&p=9950#p9950
    There are a number of reasons.
    First, the "duality" - this "supplement". In addition the basis of Young on the grounds of rationality / irrationality does not extend to the dual intertype.
    INFO-ESTA basis chosen so that the addition of all four criteria in line with the dual intertype.
    In addition, if you read the last paragraph of the first chapter (available in the network to transfer Tikhonov) book "Gifts differing" authors MBTI, will be obvious (at least to you - as a structural logic) that J | P - not rationality / irrationality, and the combination rationality / irrationality with exrtaversion / introversion that the structure is equal signs Reynin's dynamics / statics.

    Denotes O | A: from smoothing | sharping
    The following reasons:
    1) To avoid confusion. Due to the fact that under J | P illiterate and most socionists typist understand the rationality / irrationality. (That Does not read the original, either get lost in broad daylight, whether expressed contempt Myers-Briggs disregard for their definitions).
    2) to simplify the pronunciation of acronyms such as
    3) to highlight differences in interpretation of the sign
    4) To avoid potential legal conflicts with the MBTI

    More detailed in my article "History of the 4th dichotomy" in СПиМО for October 2001
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  31. #31
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You could always try to make a thread about it in the general discssion forum, though be warned - people may tear apart your idea before they accept it so be weary how you appraoch things.

  32. #32
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    You could always try to make a thread about it in the general discssion forum, though be warned - people may tear apart your idea before they accept it so be weary how you appraoch things.
    Thanks! That was one one the examples of Dissonance: Intuition. While Ne conflicting with Ni
    I have lost of practice in this theme. I have also articles and examples of such informational dissonances. Perhaps further discussing in that way would help me to understand how to translate my knowledge into English language.
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  33. #33
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Theres a pretty big discussion going on right now in general discussion http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=36723. Perhaps you should check it out, it talks alot about the differences between socionics and MBTI and people are busy discussing it. Itll be a chance to practice your english and your debating skills too, if thats what you wanna do.

  34. #34
    Yaaroslav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kiev UA
    TIM
    INTJ
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    I WILL answer, just I'm currently too busy with a lot of shit and I don't know what to do first... I can't just sit down and "write", WTF? I need to think, recall things, be in the mood, etc - have inspiration. You are Ej's and you don't understand this anyway.
    I am Ej - because... You want to consider this way. You didn't read the arguments, but still point on your version. As you if considering: "you can not mistake". This is not true.
    DO YOU CONSIDER: YOU CAN NOT MISTAKE?
    (You words - doesn't matter. The matter is - your deeds)
    Anyone who would dare argue with me should be able to pass the test on the basis of Socionics. Otherwise, he will be recognized as a boor.
    Remember: NO CONVERGENCE - NO SCIENCE!

  35. #35
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ISTP = ISTp

    Both MBTI and Socionics describe this type as "The Mechanic".

    Therefor when it comes to dichotomies:
    MBTI = Socionics = Jung

    When it comes to functions:
    MBTI = complete illogical mess
    Socionics = Jung

  36. #36
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,782
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    ISTP = ISTp

    Both MBTI and Socionics describe this type as "The Mechanic".

    Therefor when it comes to dichotomies:
    MBTI = Socionics = Jung

    When it comes to functions:
    MBTI = complete illogical mess
    Socionics = Jung
    Agreed. Take, for example, the contradictory nature of the following (MBTI) page on personal growth of an ISTP (I once saw this site ranked #1 on another site that ranked reliability of MBTI sites):

    http://www.personalitypage.com/html/ISTP_per.html

    If you take a look at the "ISTP Strengths" paragraph and the description above it, you can see that even from an MBTI perspective, mostly references are made to Si and Te (even though these functions are not as clearly defined in MBTI as they are in Socionics). Next, in the "Potential Problem Areas" paragraph, problems are blamed upon "Introverted Thinking overtaking the personality to the point that all of the other functions exist merely to serve the purposes of Introverted Thinking". How this actually works out in the list of problems that follows, isn't explained, which makes it easy to overlook/deny the obvious contradiction as to functions. Next, in the "Explanation of Problems" paragraph, a lot of mumbo jumbo that really explains nothing is offered as explanation for problems. No wonder critical questions are never asked, and functions (or information elements as we call them in Socionics) are often left undiscussed in MBTI, if they were, it would definitively lead to a collapse of the theory.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

Posting Permissions

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