I don't understand why everyone thinks there needs to be a nice bell curve distribution among the types. Not everything in nature fits that statistical profile.
I don't understand why everyone thinks there needs to be a nice bell curve distribution among the types. Not everything in nature fits that statistical profile.
I'm not part of "everyone".Originally Posted by uncivilized
Basically in one school of thought you can think of a function-attitude as not a mental process, but as the sum of tendencies which someone of a certain attitude exhibits when accessing a process.
The closer you are to thinking of a function-attitude as its own "information type," you've narrowed down from a sum of various tendencies in the interface of the function and the attitude to basically a "new function" ie an information type of its own -- 1/8, rather than 1/4.
It's actually true even by the more data-driven sources that E+F has a lot to do with emotions, so the whole Fe often being conceptualized in terms of emotional dynamics isn't without empirical basis, but if you wanted to stay statistical instead of define a mental process, you'd just say that's 1 thing that "correlates" with E+F, and doesn't define it. Whereas you actually pin down and define things in the information element school of thought more.
That's why it introduces specificity. Te in socionics is more specific than e.g "ETJ".
And it's also why I think that while one should try to not artificially force socionics IE to look different from say Jung or Myersian stuff, it's not terrible to ackowledge that the IE are acquiring somewhat specific meanings either.
I still think at least the N, T, F and S are reasonably similar themselves before you define what Ni is and so on in the specific systems.
I'd say Jung treated introversion/extraversion as a pretty broad collection to tendencies rather than a single process, but he treated his 4 functions as pretty specific processes that tell you particular kinds of info. It was the one part of his typology that seemed to hit someone's personality predominantly, not merely their cognition -- although surely both. In fact I think there's even a hint of this here:
The MBTI dichotomies kinda take all of the 4 functions and turn them into statistical measures of personality correlates, hence why there's no specificity anymore (like even the founding dichotomy logic vs feelings is only a correlate of T/F, no longer defining of it).
Last edited by chemical; 12-12-2015 at 10:06 PM.
I don't agree with that school of thought. And the function dichotomies, they can be viewed as a sum of tendencies if going by that...
Shouldn't be any less specific than the dichotomies.And it's also why I think that while one should try to not artificially force socionics IE to look different from say Jung or Myersian stuff, it's not terrible to ackowledge that the IE are acquiring somewhat specific meanings either.
Why not a process though.I'd say Jung treated introversion/extraversion as a pretty broad collection to tendencies rather than a single process
Duh, everyone with working eyes sees there's no bell curve distribution among the types.
Well yes, my whole post was aiming for things like IE being *more* specific than the statistical dimensions like the MBTI dicotomies or Big 5.
And as for introversion-extraversion as a process vs as more than a process and a bundle of related attitudinal tendencies, I don't have too much of a preference so much as it depends if you're measuring a statistical dimension or if you want to define the philosophies of cognition of more specific types.
Jung did conceive of introverting as a process as well as a broad collection of related attitudes, so one could conceivably take his theory either in the statistical dimension direction or in the more socionics-esque one.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote