Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Oldham and Socionics

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Oldham and Socionics

    Curious states:

    Most MBTI type descriptions are kind of fuzzy, they do not accurately discriminate between the bordering types, and the profiles you quoted could fit many INFJs too. What you could do is to read the type descriptions available on this site. The Oldham's types are a bit controversial, but in my opinion the correspondence to socionics/MBTI types does generally make sense. If it seems clear to you that the Sensitive Style fits you better than the Dramatic Style, the chances are that you are actually a (socionics) INFJ.

    http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=35

    Do the Oldham descriptions help you to find out whether you are j or p type?

  2. #2
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Dmitri's completely wrong. There's obiously a greater amount of similarity between the MBTI and Socionic types then there is between the Oldham and Socionic types.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Have you tried the oldham comparison for j and p that I've mentioned?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Where does he state this?
    I think theres a stronger correlation between Jungian types and Jungian types, no matter how they are wrapped up or tested

  5. #5
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Oldham & socionics correlation

    The ones on the16types are blatently flawed. For example, why is the Aggressive style associated with the LIE, and not the SLE? Why is Leisurely an LSE thing and not an SLI thing? How could someone want to relax (Leisurely) and not relax (Te leading) at the same time?

    Some of them should be changed.

    As it stands, these are the apparent correlations.

    Now I'm not going to go exactly against what I just outlined in my thread in "Non-socionic Type theories", because I'm not trying to correlate; I'm simply going to say how socionics and MBTT are similar, for the purpose of making a point. I'm gonna use this site, that I've already posted in another thread.

    To me, the Oldham, MBTT (from a dichotomical point of view only) and Enneagram correlations are nigh on perfect, with a few dodgy exceptions (like ExFP being correlated with a 4).

    Adventurous XSTP 7w8w7
    Aggressive EXTJ 8w7
    Artistic XSFP 7
    Conscientious XSTJ 1, so-first (prussian) 6 (IMHO mainly 6w5s), 3
    Devoted XSFJ 9
    Dramatic ESFX 2w3, 7w6
    Idiosyncratic INTX 4w5w4
    Inventive ENXP 3w4w3
    Leisurely IXTP 6, 9w8
    Mercurial EXFP 4w3, 7w6
    Self-Confident EXTP 3w2
    Self-Sacrificing EXFJ 2w1, 9w1
    Sensitive INFX phobic 6, 4w5, 9w1
    Serious ISXJ 1w9, prussian 6
    Solitary IXTJ 5
    Vigilant XNTJ 8, cp6

    Now, I'm an SLE, and I don't fit Oldham's Self-Confident style for shit. I don't even know why Self-Confident and SLE are correlated. Perhaps the MBTT ESTP is close if not the same as Self-Confident, but SLE is nothing like it. It is by far closest to the Aggressive or often the Vigilant style. And clearly there will be LIEs on this forum who do not identify with the Aggressive style, especially when people like Joy purport that her aggression and energy levels are low. And I'd hardly call Expat Aggressive. He's far more suited to Vigilant, which 8s can be, as this shows. It is closer to the 8w9 than the 8w7. And what is Vigilant correlated with according to the16types? IEE.

    ...

    How ridiculous. Have a read of the Vigilant description. IEE my arse. Slacker Mom, tell me you don't identify with the Vigilant description. Same goes for other IEEs on this forum.

    In the16types' defence, some of the correlations pretty much hit the nail on the head. Take Sensitive. This correlates almost perfectly with the EII. And Mercurial. I'm sure many 7 SEEs would agree that that suits them best. But for a lot of them, there are some serious problems here, as I've outlined above.

    So now I've brought that to people's attention, feel free to make your own mind up about these correlations. IMO, they're not very good, and iwhen I've got some proper free time i.e. Christmas time, I'll probably play around with some new correlations, and find what fits exactly, and where the flaws in correlation are (there's bound to be a socionics type that doesn't actually fit in with any Oldham type).
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  6. #6
    aka-kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    966
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Please stop. There are no one-to-one correlations with Oldham. It's not a single "type" theory, so not comparable.
    socio: INFp - IEI
    ennea: 4w5 sp/sx

    **********

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Twain
    Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'.

  7. #7
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
    Please stop. There are no one-to-one correlations with Oldham. It's not a single "type" theory, so not comparable.
    Yeah, so, get rid of that stupid column on the16types that attempts to show that there is.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  8. #8
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,318
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    These kinds of topics are done on a regular basis.. for example: http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...gilant&start=0

    To answer your question of enfp and vigilance:
    In the above linked thread:

    Slacker mom had Mercurial #1, Devoted #2, Adventurous #3
    But her test said Mercurial, Devoted, and Dramatic, though she didn't see dramatic, just moody.

    I tested 57% vigilant, but then this was mostly influenced by my history.
    I chose Leisurely #1, Artistic #2, Vigilant (parts of it, and more so in the past)
    (in the past, vigilance and mercurial were more pronounced, but this was related to the ptsd)
    I tested as leisurely 89%, dramatic as 69% , Idiosyncratic 67%
    (I firmly believe that the dramatic was due to high reactivity which is associated with vigilance and mercurial which is associated with the ptsd)
    I didn't like a lot of the questions from that test because while I had to answer certain ways, it bothered me because those answers were only due to certain unnormal issues.

    Mea had vigilance as 57% also.
    She tested as Adventurous #1, Leisurely #2, Sensitive #3

    And I'm not going into the other half of the thread…you can do that if ya really wanted to, heheh. (I don't even know if Kim posted to it)
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  9. #9
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,318
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think there might be a higher liklihood of there being a correlation between enneagram and oldham, over either of them correlating cleanly with socionics. But then, I don't know much at all of either.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  10. #10
    aka-kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    966
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Quote Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
    Please stop. There are no one-to-one correlations with Oldham. It's not a single "type" theory, so not comparable.
    Yeah, so, get rid of that stupid column on the16types that attempts to show that there is.
    You *could* simply ignore it, as I do.
    socio: INFp - IEI
    ennea: 4w5 sp/sx

    **********

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Twain
    Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'.

  11. #11
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Quote Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
    Please stop. There are no one-to-one correlations with Oldham. It's not a single "type" theory, so not comparable.
    Yeah, so, get rid of that stupid column on the16types that attempts to show that there is.
    You *could* simply ignore it, as I do.
    +2

  12. #12
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Quote Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
    Please stop. There are no one-to-one correlations with Oldham. It's not a single "type" theory, so not comparable.
    Yeah, so, get rid of that stupid column on the16types that attempts to show that there is.
    I've asked for this to happen more than once.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  13. #13
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    And I'm not going into the other half of the thread…you can do that if ya really wanted to, heheh. (I don't even know if Kim posted to it)
    I got:

    Vigilant 50%
    Solitary 21%
    Idiosyncratic 17%
    Adventurous 27%
    Mercurial 38%
    Dramatic 6%
    Self - Confident 17%
    Sensitive 36%
    Devoted 33%
    Concientous 22%
    Leisurely 22%
    Aggressive 13%
    Self - Sacrificing 25%

    Mainly because I answered 'no' to many of the questions. They simply don't apply to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
    You *could* simply ignore it, as I do.
    No, it should be changed to give the correct factual information.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

Posting Permissions

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