Typologies vs Typologies

[sar]

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. 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.

[Sumer1an]

An irrational in socionics can pretty much fit into rational or irrational in MBTI so what they are really doing is putting mirrors together (and to add to that extinguishment isnt that bad of a relation). So an INFP and ENFP in MBTI could actually be INFp and ENFj. Say in a MBTI forum if an INFP says that they do not get along with other ENFPs then the people will suggest that they are mistyped and should be INFJ or that they are mistyping ENFPs as ENFJs. I may not have answered your question at all because I pretty much scanned your post rather than actually reading it.

[sar]

Ashton: "Information metabolism is a psychological theory of human social interactions based on information processing. It was developed in Eastern Europe by Antoni Kępiński who criticized works of Carl Jung." Just found this on Wikipedia and thought it was odd since socionics is the fusion of these two people's ideas.

Sumer1an: What your saying makes sense. But what I was saying was that I know for sure that I am INFp AND INFP and that he is an ENFp AND an ENFP. So, in this case, something from one and/or both of the typologies is getting left out.

[Sumer1an]

Sumer1an: What your saying makes sense. But what I was saying was that I know for sure that I am INFp AND INFP and that he is an ENFp AND an ENFP. So, in this case, something from one and/or both of the typologies is getting left out.

Personally, I think MBTI is complete BS. Its based purely on behavior and only a few factors that go deeper than that. You can fit yourself into nearly any type if you try. My type could be completely different depending on how Im feeling. One day I may be an INTP another I may be an ENTP, and another I may be an INTJ. The only thing that really stays consistent is the NT aspect. Those that try and go deep with MBTI end up connecting dots where they shouldnt be connected and drawing all kinds of false conclusions. I think it stems largely from how flawed the functions are in MBTI. The actual intertype relations of socionics should come through unless you have other factors that are changing your behavior.

[EyeSeeCold]

First there was Jung...

MBTI was born out of Jung, but had a system such that Jung's Introvert Rationals became Irrationals/Perceivers, and Jung's Introvert Irrationals became Rationals/Judgers.

Keirsey's Temperament Sorter is based on MBTI's Four Letter layout and thus carries the same dispositions mentioned earlier, plus more, such as inaccurate stereotypes.

Aušra Augustinavičiūtė adopted Jung's theoretical premises as is, but carved out a lot of the material to create explicit caricatures; also added other material such as that from Antoni Kępiński(seems to be highly re-interpreted).

Enneagram has an entirely different approach.

Therefore:

MBTI and Keirsey are not compatible with Socionics or Jungian typology; they will conflict on intertype relations. Enneagram is compatible with all.


You can argue perspectivism, I suppose, but that's not the issue. It's that only Aušra Augustinavičiūtė translated Jung properly.

[sar]

Ashton- HA! clever sir. Can't trust anything nowadays, can you? That's my fucking point! lol

[Jonathan]

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.

It's interesting to find stuff written on theories of intertype relationships in MBTI from time to time. But regarding the one you mentioned, where is the study? There's no study mentioned there. It seems that this personality consultant merely conjectured what types would go well together, based on certain assumptions such as similar types are good, and types where the letters are far away are probably bad. I know that this is the way it's usually done.

There are a lot of good statistical studies done with MBTI. The reason there are so many criticisms of MBTI (besides this being a socionics forum) is because a lot of these people with their own versions of MBTI turn it into something worse than what it really is. I'm not saying MBTI is necessarily correct; it's just that it's not as bad as the offshoots one finds online.

BTW, it's easy to find contradictions and differences of opinion. That's different than finding contradictions in the results of studies. Even then, each study has its own research design, so that results may not be as contradictory as the conclusions make them appear.

You also mentioned that "extinguishing relations" are not good. Although it's not considered one of the best relations in socionics, don't read too much into the name. Most descriptions of extinguishing relations don't make them out to be terrible. I think there are many casual friendships along those lines.

[tcaudilllg]

Extinguishing relations make good marriage relations. Until the divorce.

And the only thing MBTI lacks is depth, which socionics has. The smart person uses the systems as one, and defers to socionics when in doubt.

[rat1]

I'm not reading the OP. I don't know what your problem is or what you think you've discovered, but I am certain it is a waste of my time unraveling it. 99% odds is it's just a semantic mess. MBTI is behavior, Socionics is cognition. Socionics works and I know exactly how it works. There's nothing else to be discussed as far as I'm concerned.

[rat1]

You make no attempt to define what constitutes 'good relations'... you don't specify what the researchers considered good, you don't compare that to socionics view on relationships or socionics relationship outcomes.. you have no tangible definition for it, yet it's the whole basis of your point. And the definition is very debatable to begin with.


If there was any argument I hadn't heard before then maybe I'd still spend time reading this shit.

Every week we have a noob post their realizations on how socionics is flawed. The arguments take alot of time to unravel.. they're frustrating. After I finally pick apart what the person is saying I have gained nothing from it.

So after doing this about 100 times it gets pretty annoying and then you just stop reading.

All noobs with budding theories on how to disprove socionics.. please stfu.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Thanks to rat for wasting his precious time on this thread and sparing me from having to do so myself.

[Crispy]

Why does everyone enjoy dick riding Socrates? Knowin' shit is what it is and what it do.

[sar]

not you. i like you ...i got that you were just messing around

[EyeSeeCold]

everyone's treating me like shit...

...

I took on your thread and all you did was extract one line and move on.

You're either a troll or you are unskilled at presentation and argumentation. No one has been treating you like shit, you're just making excuses for some reason I don't know.

[sar]

"You're either a troll or you are unskilled at presentation and argumentation."

Yeah, it must be one of those two options. Not that I just said something you didn't like and disagreed with. For the record, I can deal with people disagreeing with me...that's not what I'm upset about. It's the "how" people on here said whatever they said that I have a problem with. They (the ones that I have problems with anyways) didn't just say "Interesting. But, you're missing points A,B, and C", they instead resorted to name calling and dismissing me like I'm some fucking idiot or "troll" or "noob" or some other cool internet insult

[EyeSeeCold]

"You're either a troll or you are unskilled at presentation and argumentation."

Yeah, it must be one of those two options. Not that I just said something you didn't like and disagreed with. For the record, I can deal with people disagreeing with me...that's not what I'm upset about. It's the "how" people on here said whatever they said that I have a problem with. They (the ones that I have problems with anyways) didn't just say "Interesting. But, you're missing points A,B, and C", they instead resorted to name calling and dismissing me like I'm some fucking idiot or "troll" or "noob" or some other cool internet insult

I haven't necessarily disagreed with or disliked anything you've said.

You're not addressing responses properly or relevantly, and are derailing your own thread.

[sar]

k0rpsey, rat, and you. that's who my responses are geared towards. And I don't give a shit if i'm "derailing" my own thread. When people are being dicks, I like to let them know they are doing it so that they can avoid doing it in the future to others. Think of it as me looking out for you

"I took on your thread and all you did was extract one line and move on."

That's cause I basically agreed with everything else you said except for the perspectivism thing. From my POV, that's precisely the issue.

[Korpsy Knievel]

k0rpsey, rat, and you. that's who my responses are geared towards. And I don't give a shit if i'm "derailing" my own thread. When people are being dicks, I like to let them know they are doing it so that they can avoid doing it in the future to others. Think of it as me looking out for you

Goody buddy, I was razzing rat for berating you over a thread he noisily deemed unworthy of consideration or response. See the lulzy contradiction?

My cursory scan of the OP stopped as soon as I saw "MBTI", but instead of pitching a conniption like your new best pal I simply lost interest and moved on.

[sar]

"Goody buddy, I was razzing rat for berating you over a thread he noisily deemed unworthy of consideration or response. See the lulzy contradiction?"

Yes i do, now. Misunderstanding on my part. My apologies.

[Korpsy Knievel]

No problem.

[Beautiful sky]

http://www.typelogic.com/ has my dual as my novelty:

Novelty intriguingly different: interestingly so