Rings and diffs between MBTI & Socionics?

[liveandletlive]

Okay so I've been coming across difficulties when introducing socionics to newbies. In explaining the 4 Jungian dichotomies before IM elements, IXXps often perceive themselves as judging types after hearing the characteristics of judging types. Now I know that MBTI and socionics do not correlate and the whole P/J switch may not always be the case, but these IXXp types in socionics were IXXj types in MBTI. Anyway, I guess I was wondering if perhaps the IXXps demonstrate these seemingly judging characteristics because like EXXjs they both have dynamic elements in their mental ring? I also have noticed some perceiving behaviors IRL by IXXjs so perhaps this is because like EXXps they have static elements in their mental ring?

[Expat]

What characteristics of J types were those IXXps identifying with?

[liveandletlive]

What characteristics of J types were those IXXps identifying with?

Planning ahead, being punctual, being organized, etc.

[Expat]

Planning ahead, being punctual, being organized, etc.

I thought as much

I don't think people answering that they identify with the above necessarily means that they are socionics rationals.

[Joy]

and good god almighty, messy does not mean "p" in Socionics

(just thought I'd throw that in)

[Phaedrus]

Now I know that MBTI and socionics do not correlate

@Everyone

Please stop this misuse of language. MBTT and Socionics definitely DO correlate -- and so does most of everything else in the world, one way or the other. The problem is to investigate to exactly what degree and in exactly what way they correlate, but to say that they don't correlate is of course a completely false statement.

IXXps often perceive themselves as judging types after hearing the characteristics of judging types

Correct. And the main reason is that they don't understand the J/P dichotomy correctly. In order to determine whether you are a rational J type or an irrational P type you should observe your own outward, external behaviour. They mistakenly believe that they are J types because they only observe their own thought processes, which at least INTps tend to perceive as ordered, structured and therefore easily identified as Ti. And the explanation for that phenomenon is that they identify very much with their creative function Te.

[Jonathan]

Planning ahead, being punctual, being organized, etc.

I thought as much

I don't think people answering that they identify with the above necessarily means that they are socionics rationals.

That's true. The question here is would dynamic and/or resolute types be more likely to want to plan ahead than static and/or reasonable types? (Here I'm using Reinin dichotomies, but only for convenience in terms of groupings of types.)

Personally, I think there's some truth to what liveandletlive is noticing here....What's interesting too, though, is that the first impression of a person as being organized or "together" or being flexibe and easy-going is often proven incorrect, or at least not fully correct, when you get to know the person better.

[Joy]

Now I know that MBTI and socionics do not correlate

@Everyone

Please stop this misuse of language. MBTT and Socionics definitely DO correlate -- and so does most of everything else in the world, one way or the other. The problem is to investigate to exactly what degree and in exactly what way they correlate, but to say that they don't correlate is of course a completely false statement.

IXXps often perceive themselves as judging types after hearing the characteristics of judging types

Correct. And the main reason is that they don't understand the J/P dichotomy correctly. In order to determine whether you are a rational J type or an irrational P type you should observe your own outward, external behaviour. They mistakenly believe that they are J types because they only observe their own thought processes, which at least INTps tend to perceive as ordered, structured and therefore easily identified as Ti. And the explanation for that phenomenon is that they identify very much with their creative function Te.

Just curious liveandletlive, does it feel like your hidden agenda is being fulfilled?

[liveandletlive]

OK so a few things...

- @ phaedrus- i know that it's because of the rationality of the first extraverted function, but as Jonathan postulated i was wondering if the rings had omething to do with their seeingly judging behavior.

- @ joy- my mind is all hot bothered :wink:

[aestrivex]

In explaining the 4 Jungian dichotomies before IM elements

here is your problem.

[Ezra]

and good god almighty, messy does not mean "p" in Socionics

(just thought I'd throw that in)

Point must be taken by all.

In MBTT, "P" generally means laid-back, freeflowing and unconcerned about timings, plans etc. In socionics, "p" means nothing of the sort. It's more about mental states.

[liveandletlive]

In explaining the 4 Jungian dichotomies before IM elements

here is your problem.

Trust me- i know. Jumping right in and introducing IM elements is scary to people... especially these ones:

[aestrivex]

In explaining the 4 Jungian dichotomies before IM elements

here is your problem.

Trust me- i know. Jumping right in and introducing IM elements is scary to people... especially these ones:

i don't know or care how "scary" it is. frankly it just doesn't make sense to introduce socionics in any other context.

[liveandletlive]

In explaining the 4 Jungian dichotomies before IM elements

here is your problem.

Trust me- i know. Jumping right in and introducing IM elements is scary to people... especially these ones:

i don't know or care how "scary" it is. frankly it just doesn't make sense to introduce socionics in any other context.

DUH. how would you feel if there's this crazy girl that you're friends with is always talking about ENF-that, or IST-this, and tells you she knows your hidden desires and weaknesses and you show up to this meeting she's having having to do with all this mumbo jumbo you keep hearing about and she starts showing you black and white shapes. I think I'd run out screaming "Don't drink the punch!"

[aestrivex]

i feel like we've had this discussion before.


obviously making your system out to be omniscient before explaining it is a poor strategy, but focusing on IM elements does not remotely require that. just because you might be biased enough to think that jungian dichotomies are central to socionics doesn't mean that they are.


giving examples of how different people display different patterns of metabolizing information, and then gradually building the framework of socionics out of how people different respond is the only method that would really make sense in terms of teaching newbies what in socionics is actually important.


admittedly i've used this method exactly once, in the lone instance that i've tried to teach socionics to somebody else. that person happened to be my ESE grandmother. that didn't work too well.

interestingly, thehotelambush's grandmother, who is my grandmother's clone in many ways, didn't seem to really understand what was going on but was answering questions about Si very pertinently by the end of the conference in new york.

[Expat]

I think the best way is to speak generally of how different people react differently, using examples you both know, and only gradually introduce the concept of 16 types, quadras, and functions.

[aestrivex]

I think the best way is to speak generally of how different people react differently, using examples you both know, and only gradually introduce the concept of 16 types, quadras, and functions.

which is the same exactly thing that i said, except introducing IM elements before quadras and types.

[liveandletlive]

anyway it's too late and irrelevant to the point of the thread...

[Danielle]

Don't know about the rings explaining anything, but I don't understand why people don't introduce newbies to Socionics using intertype relations. Much simpler and easier to understand, it's the sort of practical thing most people are interested in, and it is a dimension that is unexplored by MBTT. It's a better way to type someone than IM elements if you can relate to people on a more personal level. It's also the one and only thing that proves the worth of Socionics to an MBTT follower. I say stop trying to get people to figure out how their own minds work, when it's easier to get them to observe how they relate to others. Their minds are already filled with the MB explanations of dichotomies, types, functions. Probably also have some Keirseyan temperament theory thrown in as well. Quite frankly, MBTT is easier to understand and follow, mostly because there is a lot more information out there about it in English. Personally, the only reason I give Socionics any credence with regard to J/P is the reality of intertype relations. MBTT is much easier to understand and relate to on that score. I don't relate to IJ, IP, EJ or EP, primarily because it requires me to know things like if I am "unflappable" or "go with the flow", "relaxed" or "calm" (I would say both, but they describe different temperaments).

Socionics temperaments are one of the least explored aspects in English. Intertype relations the most.

Why not approach from that angle, then go into IM elements, types, quadras, etc?

[Jarno]

I agree with Danielle.

Although I'm not totally convinced that everyone experiences the relationships clearly. It sometimes seems that Extroverts rather look at the person then that they try to concentrate on how the relationship works (the compatibilty).

[aestrivex]

anyway it's too late and irrelevant to the point of the thread...

it's not irrelevant. if people raise objections about what you're telling them in terms of the J/P dichotomies or whatever to do with jungian/MBTI blather, show them why they're wrong by explaining the situation in terms of information elements.

[aestrivex]

Socionics temperaments are one of the least explored aspects in English. Intertype relations the most.

Why not approach from that angle, then go into IM elements, types, quadras, etc?

because intertype relations depend on information metabolism. if you actually started talking about how information metabolism is manifest (and did a competent job at it), intertype relations would be discussed constantly as a matter of course, rather than only after information elements and types are established.

[liveandletlive]

anyway it's too late and irrelevant to the point of the thread...

it's not irrelevant. if people raise objections about what you're telling them in terms of the J/P dichotomies or whatever to do with jungian/MBTI blather, show them why they're wrong by explaining the situation in terms of information elements.

kk fine- i'll do it next year. i just get worried jumping into it that they might get scared and not be interested in it.

[Gilly]

The idea of you teaching Socionics to other people makes me giggle. Maybe I'll come visit your little club while I'm home over break and show them just how dumb you are. Where do you guys meet?

[aestrivex]

anyway it's too late and irrelevant to the point of the thread...

it's not irrelevant. if people raise objections about what you're telling them in terms of the J/P dichotomies or whatever to do with jungian/MBTI blather, show them why they're wrong by explaining the situation in terms of information elements.

kk fine- i'll do it next year. i just get worried jumping into it that they might get scared and not be interested in it.

there's no reason why you can't do it now.

[liveandletlive]

anyway it's too late and irrelevant to the point of the thread...

it's not irrelevant. if people raise objections about what you're telling them in terms of the J/P dichotomies or whatever to do with jungian/MBTI blather, show them why they're wrong by explaining the situation in terms of information elements.

kk fine- i'll do it next year. i just get worried jumping into it that they might get scared and not be interested in it.

there's no reason why you can't do it now.

we're talking about elements in january. now back to the rings!!

[aestrivex]

then you're wasting your time. rings are an incredibly obscure and worthless topic.

[liveandletlive]

then you're wasting your time. rings are an incredibly obscure and worthless topic.

ahhhhhhhhhhh!! i meant in the context of this thread!

[aestrivex]

i have no idea what mental rings or dynamic objects or any of that blather even means.

[liveandletlive]

i have no idea what mental rings or dynamic objects or any of that blather even means.

u should look into them. u probably already know what they are, but it'll help you to put a name on these things.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...el_A_structure

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...mic_and_Static

[reyn_til_runa]

for niffweed:

A ring is a set \,R equipped with two binary operations +\colon R \times R \rightarrow R and \cdot \colon R \times R \rightarrow R (where \times denotes the Cartesian product), called addition and multiplication, such that:

* \,(R, +) is an abelian group with identity element \,0, so that \,\forall a, b, c \in R, the following axioms hold:
o \,a + b \in R
o \,(a + b) + c = a + (b + c)
o \,0 + a = a
o \,a + b = b + a
o \,\exists \,-a \in R \mbox{ such that } a + (-a) = (-a) + a = 0
* \,(R, \cdot) is a monoid with identity element \,1, so that \,\forall a, b, c \in R, the following axioms hold:
o \,a \cdot b \in R
o \,(a \cdot b)\cdot c = a\cdot(b \cdot c)
o \,1\cdot a = a\cdot 1 = a
* Multiplication distributes over addition:
o \,a \cdot (b + c) = (a \cdot b) + (a \cdot c)
o \,(a + b)\cdot c = (a \cdot c) + (b \cdot c)

As with groups the symbol · is usually omitted and multiplication is just denoted by juxtaposition. Also, the standard order of operation rules are used, so that, for example, a+bc is an abbreviation for a+(b·c).

Although ring addition is commutative, so that a+b = b+a, ring multiplication is not required to be commutative; a·b need not equal b·a. Rings that also satisfy commutativity for multiplication (such as the ring of integers) are called commutative rings. An example of a non-commutative ring is the ring of n×n matrices over a field K, for n > 1.

Rings need not have multiplicative inverses either. An element a in a ring is called a unit if it is invertible with respect to multiplication: if there is an element b in the ring such that a·b = b·a = 1, then b is uniquely determined by a and we write a−1 = b. The set of all units in R forms a group under ring multiplication; this group is denoted by U(R) or R*.

[aestrivex]

thank you.

[aestrivex]

i have no idea what mental rings or dynamic objects or any of that blather even means.

u should look into them. u probably already know what they are, but it'll help you to put a name on these things.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...el_A_structure

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...mic_and_Static

i know what dynamic and static means, but i haven't the faintest idea what these "internal dynamics of objects" or whatever blather that these people talk about means, which is what i mean when i talk about this.


mental rings=conscious, vital ring=unconscious. ok. isn't it wonderful how everything has nine different names?

[Expat]

I don't relate to IJ, IP, EJ or EP, primarily because it requires me to know things like if I am "unflappable" or "go with the flow", "relaxed" or "calm" (I would say both, but they describe different temperaments).

But you see, that means that they already confirm that you're an Introvert if you are undecided between IJ and IP. Others might be divided between EJ and IJ, and that would show they're most likely rationals. That's already a lot imo. If you go for bullet-point, brief temperament descriptions, it's not easy to write any that would make you inequivocally identify with just one.

Socionics temperaments are one of the least explored aspects in English. Intertype relations the most.

Because temperaments are not seen as the core of the theory, intertype relationships are -- I do think temperaments are very useful, but you could also use socionics well without ever thinking of them.

Why not approach from that angle, then go into IM elements, types, quadras, etc?

Sure.

[strrrng]

I think you have to understand your type, atleast generally, before you can start going into intertype relations. how are you supposed to read an activation relation about any type and identify with it if you don't understand the types?

mbti and socionics correlate on a general level, but socionics is a real system based on mathematics and empirical study. of course there was observation in mbti, but from my long, previous experience with it, it was all about type descriptions with little cognitive science.

here is a conundrum with crossing over: say a person who is a real rational/judger - not a person who is organized and thinks they are - scores INTJ on a mbti test. So, they read about functions, and identify strongly with Ni but not so much with Ti. Then they read about socionics and identify with the IJ temperament. But if they don't identify with Ti, there is a contradiction.....it could be that they convinced themselves of something to reassure their perception, or perhaps the mental/vital stuff will come into play, but still

and like ezra said, rational/irrational is about mental states; mbti is about behavior, which is incomplete. For INTp, they say "their inner world is very structured, but not their outer world"....but if you have a dominant rational function you are a structured person, generally, in one way or another. Rationals can be disorganized and vice-versa, we know this, but the generally mental states of each produce certain behaviors.

either way, socionics>>>mbti, imo

[Rick]

i know what dynamic and static means, but i haven't the faintest idea what these "internal dynamics of objects" or whatever blather that these people talk about means, which is what i mean when i talk about this.


mental rings=conscious, vital ring=unconscious. ok. isn't it wonderful how everything has nine different names?

Yes, but ... conscious and unconscious aren't correct terms. 95% of what happens in our psyche we aren't conscious/aware of minute to minute. Much of the leading function's attitudes and values are unconscious. This topic keeps getting raised again and again, and I think people have not discovered the right answer yet. This gets right down to the crux of the problems... Someone find the answer! )

[aestrivex]

Yes, but ... conscious and unconscious aren't correct terms. 95% of what happens in our psyche we aren't conscious/aware of minute to minute. Much of the leading function's attitudes and values are unconscious. This topic keeps getting raised again and again, and I think people have not discovered the right answer yet. This gets right down to the crux of the problems... Someone find the answer! )

i think you're grasping at straws over the terminology here. maybe it's not a perfect world, but calling something a conscious function doesn't necessarily mean it's on the forefront of your mind at every waking moment.

[Rick]

i think you're grasping at straws over the terminology here. maybe it's not a perfect world, but calling something a conscious function doesn't necessarily mean it's on the forefront of your mind at every waking moment.

No, it's indeed not a perfect world.

Maybe. But I prefer the standard "mental" and "vital" because they are new words that can be defined as necessary rather than old words that already have different meanings that don't entirely fit socionics and thus cause misunderstandings.

I just wrote about this here: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t..._and_socionics