# Thread: Project: etalon database COMPLETE!

1. ## Project: etalon database COMPLETE!

Just visit my channel
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

2. Originally Posted by Yaaroslav
Just visit my channel
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. 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.

4. Originally Posted by The Ineffable
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?

Originally Posted by The Ineffable
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. "<>"
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...

Originally Posted by The Ineffable

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.

Originally Posted by The Ineffable
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.

5. 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!!!

6. 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. Originally Posted by Typhon
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?

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

10. 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.

11. Originally Posted by Typhon
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?

12. Originally Posted by Yaaroslav
Originally Posted by Typhon
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. Originally Posted by Typhon
Originally Posted by Yaaroslav
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...

14. *facepalms*

15. 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

16. Originally Posted by Crispy
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.

17. 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.

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

19. Originally Posted by Crispy
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.

20. Originally Posted by Maritsa33
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.

21. Originally Posted by The Ineffable
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.

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?

22. 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.

---

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

23. 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!

24. 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!

25. Originally Posted by Yaaroslav
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.

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

27. 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. Originally Posted by poli
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. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
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. Originally Posted by Typhon
Originally Posted by Yaaroslav
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

31. 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. Originally Posted by Typhon
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.

33. 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. Originally Posted by The Ineffable
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.

35. 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. Originally Posted by Jarno
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.

#### Posting Permissions

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