Long (but important! ) post.
As I was looking around for more information on the various systems that derived originally from Jung's original work (Kiersey, MBTI, socionics, enneagram, etc.) I realized that various little social experiments conducted by each of these typologies conflict.
Obviously, some people on here are aware of this...but everyone (including me) passes it off for some strange reason...isn't it sort of a BIG deal? To illustrate my point consider this: the intertype relations of socionics (Jung's original 8 personality types mixed with Kępiński's ((who critizied much of Jung's work! )) information metabolism) state that an ENFp with an INFp make for "extinguishing relations" (not good). YET on other mbti studies on relations such as this one conducted on hundreds of subjects: http://www.massmatch.com/MBTI-2.php has INFP and ENFP as one of the most ideal relations. NOW I understand that socionics and mbti are "totally different systems"...BUT Odds are an INFP will be an still be an INFp. To make this easier to imagine, I'm an INFp and also an INFP. One system (mbti) and it's research states that I should have a "great relation" with an ENFP. But, it just so happens that this ENFP is an ENFp, which means that in socionics world, were not supposed to have a great relation. Those trying to meld a lot of these theories together seem to be ignoring this...which is sort of grinding my gears. The results from samples conducted are very obviously opposed. NOTICE that I'm not arguing the systems themselves (I'm sure everyones ready to type "mbti can suck my balls"), rather am arguing the fact that a group of people conducting different experiments on the "same" people ended up with largely conflicting results on what their relation with another should be. So what gives? Isn't it just that everything is totally subjective and that if you're looking for the letter A in the alphabet you'll find A? And that if someone else is looking for the letter B, they'll also find B? Isn't it obvious that someone can look at a painting and laugh and someone else can look at the exact same painting and cry? The painting isn't changing, it's the same. Yet the perspective is different.
"Perspectivism is the philosophical view developed by Friedrich Nietzsche that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true" " (wikipedia)
Obviously, any one that's on this site is largely invested in these theories and will not accept anything different...especially coming from "some random guy with internet". But, all i'm saying is that I think it's good to consider these inconsistencies and maybe contemplate that Socretes may have been the closest to the truth by stating that all that he ever knew...was that he knew nothing. Penis.