The major flaw in Phaedrus' reasoning

[Ezra]

1. He thinks functions are the same in both systems
2. He believes if you are ISFJ, ENTP or ESTJ in MBTT, you are ESI, ILE or LSE respectively in socionics
3. He maintains that if you are extravert, dominant and auxiliary functions in MBTT correspond to base and creative functions in socionics
4. He maintains that if you an introvert, dominant and auxilary functions of your Perceiving counterpart are your base and creative functions e.g. the LSI takes the dominant and auxiliary functions of the ISTP, the SLI takes the dominant and auxiliary functions of the ISTJ etc., so that creative Te in socionics equates to dominant Ti in MBTT
5. BUT, and here's the fallacy, according to Pheadrus, the functions are the same in both systems. And if the functions are the same, how can one function in MBTT equate to another in socionics?

[Jonathan]

Unless he's changed his position recently, that's not what he said. Rather, I recall he said that the definitions of the MBTI functions and Socionics IM elements were different. I.e., he pointed out a lot that some MBTI conceptions of Ni were similar to Socionics conceptions of Ti.

Also, as I recall, he's always maintained that the functional analysis is not fully developed (that there's more to be discovered...that neither system has it completely right), and that it's better in Socionics than in MBTI, but that neither system is perfect. That's why he likes to focus on defining what people experts in each system tend to group together into "types" rather than taking the functional analysis part for granted.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

@Jonathan, that's more or less my understanding of his view also

[Phaedrus]

1. He thinks functions are the same in both systems

Certainly not. I have insisted on -- repeatedly -- that they are not the same.

2. He believes if you are ISFJ, ENTP or ESTJ in MBTT, you are ESI, ILE or LSE respectively in socionics

Yes. And that makes it impossible for me to believe that the functions are the same in both systems, does it not? Do you think that I am an idiot?

3. He maintains that if you are extravert, dominant and auxiliary functions in MBTT correspond to base and creative functions in socionics

Yes, if you keep in mind that the functions are not the same. Some of them, like Te for example, are nearly identical, some others, like Se, are described rather differently. If we view the types as whole units though, and ignore the functions analyses, the types's behaviours and attitudes coincide between the two systems, even though they focus on different aspects of the types. Which means that the respective type descriptions complement each other, since they refer to the same groups of people.

4. He maintains that if you an introvert, dominant and auxilary functions of your Perceiving counterpart are your base and creative functions e.g. the LSI takes the dominant and auxiliary functions of the ISTP, the SLI takes the dominant and auxiliary functions of the ISTJ etc., so that creative Te in socionics equates to dominant Ti in MBTT

No, definitely not. That would be true if the functions were the same in both systems, but since the functions are not the same, what you say here is only tru of the names, the labels of the functions. It is of course not true of the brains of the groups of people we are talking about. I claim that the brains of an SLI and an ISTP have identical structures in exactly the way that makes them the same type.

5. BUT, and here's the fallacy, according to Pheadrus, the functions are the same in both systems.

No. They are not the same, and I have never claimed that they are the same. On the contrary I have said many times that they are not identical. It is incredible that you still misunderstand me completely on this point.

And if the functions are the same, how can one function in MBTT equate to another in socionics?

It's very, very simple. They don't equate each other. Only the types equate each other.

[Joy]

I believe Phaedrus's stance is that the temperaments and the clubs are what correlates perfectly between MBTT and Socionics.

[Phaedrus]

I believe Phaedrus's stance is that the temperaments and the clubs are what correlates perfectly between MBTT and Socionics.

They certainly do. Anyone who reads the literature written by theorists and practitioners in the two systems has to agree with that. It is totally obvious that the temperaments and the clubs correlate perfectly. They are identical.

[Joy]

And repeatedly testing as one particular dichotomy on MBTT tests, it means that they are, without a doubt, at that end of that dichotomy?

[Not A Communist Shill]

They certainly do. Anyone who reads the literature written by theorists and practitioners in the two systems has to agree with that. It is totally obvious that the temperaments and the clubs correlate perfectly. They are identical.

Teh too sistims uz dyfirint wirds, inn dwferynt awduhs to.

[Phaedrus]

And repeatedly testing as one particular dichotomy on MBTT tests, it means that they are, without a doubt, at that end of that dichotomy?

At the end of that dichotomy? What does that mean? Such a phrasing is typical and common in MBTI contexts, and it usually indicates a misunderstanding of the types. You are one, and only one, type. It is irrelevant how much at the end of a certain scale you are according to some test. You are the same type anyway. And when you know which type you are, you can start looking at the functions and other aspect of the type you know that you are in order to understand yourself better.

[Joy]

You didn't answer my question.

[Phaedrus]

You didn't answer my question.

Rephrase it then. I don't get your point.

[Joy]

Let's take me, for example. I don't think I've ever once taken an MBTI test and scored as an extrovert. It always says I'm introverted. Does that mean that I must be an introvert?

[UDP]

1. He thinks functions are the same in both systems
2. He believes if you are ISFJ, ENTP or ESTJ in MBTT, you are ESI, ILE or LSE respectively in socionics
3. He maintains that if you are extravert, dominant and auxiliary functions in MBTT correspond to base and creative functions in socionics
4. He maintains that if you an introvert, dominant and auxilary functions of your Perceiving counterpart are your base and creative functions e.g. the LSI takes the dominant and auxiliary functions of the ISTP, the SLI takes the dominant and auxiliary functions of the ISTJ etc., so that creative Te in socionics equates to dominant Ti in MBTT
5. BUT, and here's the fallacy, according to Pheadrus, the functions are the same in both systems. And if the functions are the same, how can one function in MBTT equate to another in socionics?

Is this Ezra demonstrating Ti dual seeking?

[Phaedrus]

Let's take me, for example. I don't think I've ever once taken an MBTI test and scored as an extrovert. It always says I'm introverted. Does that mean that I must be an introvert?

No. What it means is that it is likely that you misunderstand either some of the test questions or some aspects of your own behaviour with the result that you answer some of the test questions incorrectly. Or, if you get a nearly 50/50 score on the I/E scale, it doesn't mean anything else than that the test is not accurate enough to determine your type with any certainty.

But if you always get a very clear result on one of the scales, for example always test as a stong I (maybe that's what you mean by being "at the end of a dichotomy"), then you cannot really be an extraverted type unless you have an incorrect understanding of yourself, or have an incorrect understanding of the test questions.

[Joy]

No. What it means is that it is likely that you misunderstand either some of the test questions or some aspects of your own behaviour with the result that you answer some of the test questions incorrectly. Or, if you get a nearly 50/50 score on the I/E scale, it doesn't mean anything else than that the test is not accurate enough to determine your type with any certainty.

But if you always get a very clear result on one of the scales, for example always test as a stong I (maybe that's what you mean by being "at the end of a dichotomy"), then you cannot really be an extraverted type unless you have an incorrect understanding of yourself, or have an incorrect understanding of the test questions.

The only one that's always more than 90% is intuition. And on MBTT function tests I always test highest on Ni. Not that that means anything.

Is this Ezra demonstrating Ti dual seeking?

no

[Creepy-bg]

give phaedrus a break... he's overcome a huge language barrier

[Creepy-Cyclops]

There has been nothing said so far to discredit Phaedrus' understanding of socionics, and yet, whereas for some reason most seem to disagree with his understanding of socionics, which is a little bit interesting.

[Phaedrus]

The only one that's always more than 90% is intuition. And on MBTT function tests I always test highest on Ni. Not that that means anything.

The MBTT function tests are of course totally unreliable, one reason being that the functions don't mean the same thing in MBTT and Socionics.

A more interesting problem is that you say that you always get your highest on intuition. Haven't you ever considered that to be at least slightly problematic? If you are a LIE we should expect you to score higher on T than on N, and if you never do that it is mysterious. And if I recall correctly, you have also said that you identify with EP temperament and perhaps also ENTP descriptions, or something like that, is that correct? I don't remember exactly what you said about it, but it is enough ground to dig deeper and scrutinize your assumptions. Your test results etc., seem to indicate some other type than LIE as the most likely. And that is an anomaly that should be explained somehow.

[Ezra]

Damn. I thought I got one over on the snow-lovin' Viking.

[Ezra]

Phaedrus, who do you think has a better understanding of the functions; Myers and Briggs or Aushra?

[Joy]

The MBTT function tests are of course totally unreliable, one reason being that the functions don't mean the same thing in MBTT and Socionics.

A more interesting problem is that you say that you always get your highest on intuition. Haven't you ever considered that to be at least slightly problematic? If you are a LIE we should expect you to score higher on T than on N, and if you never do that it is mysterious. And if I recall correctly, you have also said that you identify with EP temperament and perhaps also ENTP descriptions, or something like that, is that correct? I don't remember exactly what you said about it, but it is enough ground to dig deeper and scrutinize your assumptions. Your test results etc., seem to indicate some other type than LIE as the most likely. And that is an anomaly that should be explained somehow.

No, I do not identify with the EP temperament. The only temperament I really identify with is EJ, and I identify with it 100%. When I'm drunk I act more EP-ish. When I'm depressed or sick I act more IP-ish. But overall I am unmistakably EJ.

The only reason I ever identified with ILE is that I was too focused on my having ADD. When I read the ILE descriptions, I was like "oh, so that's what's wrong with me". Any time someone reads a type description and thinks "oh, so that's what's wrong with me" they need to seriously consider other type possibilities. It's not a good idea to use Socionics to explain away one's flaws and ineptitudes.

And I definitely relate to Ni MBTT descriptions more than any, but if you read the Indigo link in my sig I think you'll see why. btw, what's written in the green link is far more accurate of me as a whole than what's written in the indigo link, but I'm far more indigo than 99% of the people I've ever met, so I think it's worth mentioning.

Also, there's no way that any type other than ESI could be my dual. The only long term relationships I've ever had have all been with IJ types, and the only happy, healthy long term relationships I've ever had have have been with ESI's. And even if you don't want to trust my typings of these specific people, the fact remains that the LIE/ESI duality descriptions sound exactly like my ideal relationship, and the ESI descriptions sound exactly like my ideal mate. Also, I very much relate to Stratiyevskaya's ILE description.

The bottom line is that there really isn't any other possible type for me besides LIE. If I had to pick the next most likely type I'd go with ILI, but that's extremely unlikely based on my knowledge of ILI's and SEE's.

Phaedrus, who do you think has a better understanding of the functions; Myers and Briggs or Aushra?

This is comparing apples to oranges.

There has been nothing said so far to discredit Phaedrus' understanding of socionics, and yet, whereas for some reason most seem to disagree with his understanding of socionics, which is a little bit interesting.

It's not his understanding of Socionics that's in question, it's that he places a lot of importance on areas of the theory that most people here don't place as much importance on as other parts of the theory.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, who do you think has a better understanding of the functions; Myers and Briggs or Aushra?

Aushra of course.

[Phaedrus]

And I definitely relate to Ni MBTT descriptions more than any, but if you read the Indigo link in my sig I think you'll see why. btw, what's written in the green link is far more accurate of me as a whole than what's written in the indigo link, but I'm far more indigo than 99% of the people I've ever met, so I think it's worth mentioning.

The green link is very LIE, and if you identify with EJ temperament there is no problem of course. Everything suggests that you are a LIE then.

[Ezra]

Aushra of course.

But Aushra is less faithful to Jung than Myers and Briggs are, and I thought you liked Jung.

[Phaedrus]

But Aushra is less faithful to Jung than Myers and Briggs are, and I thought you liked Jung.

You are wrong about that. Myers and Briggs have made at least one very big and very clear mistake, and that is to correlate Jung's introverted thinkers with INTPs and ISTPs.

It is very obvious that the essence of Jung's outline of introverted thinking is the same attitude that is typical of INTjs. That attitude Jung contrasts with the empiricist scientific mind of those with extraverted thinking, which is the attitude that the Objectivists () share in the Reinin dichotomies. Both ENTJs and INTPs share this objectivist stance; you can see it for yourself if you compare MBTT type descriptions, and you can also see it clearly in Keirsey's portraits of the INTP. If you then compare Keirsey's INTP portrait with his INTJ portrait, you will see that Keirsey's INTJ is not an Objectivist. Keirsey's INTJ is a Subjectivist () with the same typical attitudes and behaviours as the LII.

[Ezra]

But the INTP of MBTT and KTT likes to generate logical systems. This is attributable to Ti, not Te, surely.

[Phaedrus]

But the INTP of MBTT and KTT likes to generate logical systems. This is attributable to Ti, not Te, surely.

It is true that Keirsey describes the INTPs as "preoccupied with spatial relativity and systems design", as "the architects of curricula, of corporations, and of all kinds of theoretical systems", and as "men and women whose aim is to design systematic structures and to engineer structural models". He says that the INTP "is the logician, the mathematician, the technologist, the scientist--that person given to any pursuit that requires architechtonics, systems analysis, or structural design. Is this ? Let's compare with the INTJs.

Keirsey says that the INTJs "build data and human systems wherever they work, if given the slightest opportunity. And in MBTT the INTJs are commonly known as the "Systems Builders" of the types. Keirsey says that they are described as good at contingency planning and strategy, and that their "traits of character lead them to occupations where theoretical models can be translated into actuality."

Now, which of these two type has the essential qualities? The correct answer is the INTJ. Why? Because the crucial difference between INTJs and INTPs is that LIIs (INTJs) want to implement a system, "force" it onto reality so to say -- that is how LIIs and LSIs are described in Socionics (compare the implementation of a system in Stalin, or Putin, or Robespierre, which all three are typical examples of manifested in real life behaviour) -- whereas the ILIs (INTPs) want to make a correct representation of objective reality in a model or a theory.

The INTJs (LIIs) want to turn their subjective ideas, their systems, into something practically useful. They want to shape reality according to their internal demands. The INTPs (ILIs) accept reality as it is, and are primarily interested in knowing the truth about that reality. "What is imoportant [to the INTPs according to Keirsey] is that the underlying structures of the universe be stated correctly, with coherence and without redundancy. Curiosity concerning these fundamental structures is the driving force in INTPs, and they care little whether others understand or accept their ideas." This attitude of the INTPs is an Objectivist attitude. It is an empiricist attitude. And thus it is clearly a attitude. The INTPs believe that there is an objective truth to be found, and that it is their job to try to find it.

The INTJs's attitude is different, and that should be obvious to you if you have read Socionics LII type descriptions, Jung's description of introverted thinking, and studied the attitudes of real life LIIs/INTJs. LIIs are Subjectivists. They tend (as for example Kant) to relativize the notions of "truth" and "reality", and they are not interested in knowing things about objective reality itself, because it is the nature of to be more interested in the categories by which we comprehend or define reality. LIIs are not very much interested in facts about the universe, not primarily interested in getting more knowledge, but instead interested in understanding the mechanisms behind the thinking process. That is what philosophers are focused on. And it often leads them to become relativists of some sort, just as the Subjectivist attitude is described in the Reinin dichotomies, or as the INJ mindset is explained by Lenore Thomson: http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exe...rted_Intuition

Here is an important aspect of "Ni", according to Thomson, that is very characteristic of and very Kantian in spirit: "For INJs, patterns aren't 'out there' in the world, waiting to be discovered. They're part of us – the way we make sense of the riot of energy and information impinging on our systems."

[UDP]

no

It was a joke/pun, for the record. One that I could explain but its time has passed.

[Ezra]

It is true that Keirsey describes the INTPs as "preoccupied with spatial relativity and systems design", as "the architects of curricula, of corporations, and of all kinds of theoretical systems", and as "men and women whose aim is to design systematic structures and to engineer structural models". He says that the INTP "is the logician, the mathematician, the technologist, the scientist--that person given to any pursuit that requires architechtonics, systems analysis, or structural design. Is this ? Let's compare with the INTJs.

Keirsey says that the INTJs "build data and human systems wherever they work, if given the slightest opportunity. And in MBTT the INTJs are commonly known as the "Systems Builders" of the types. Keirsey says that they are described as good at contingency planning and strategy, and that their "traits of character lead them to occupations where theoretical models can be translated into actuality."

Now, which of these two type has the essential qualities? The correct answer is the INTJ. Why? Because the crucial difference between INTJs and INTPs is that LIIs (INTJs) want to implement a system, "force" it onto reality so to say -- that is how LIIs and LSIs are described in Socionics (compare the implementation of a system in Stalin, or Putin, or Robespierre, which all three are typical examples of manifested in real life behaviour) -- whereas the ILIs (INTPs) want to make a correct representation of objective reality in a model or a theory.

The INTJs (LIIs) want to turn their subjective ideas, their systems, into something practically useful. They want to shape reality according to their internal demands. The INTPs (ILIs) accept reality as it is, and are primarily interested in knowing the truth about that reality. "What is imoportant [to the INTPs according to Keirsey] is that the underlying structures of the universe be stated correctly, with coherence and without redundancy. Curiosity concerning these fundamental structures is the driving force in INTPs, and they care little whether others understand or accept their ideas." This attitude of the INTPs is an Objectivist attitude. It is an empiricist attitude. And thus it is clearly a attitude. The INTPs believe that there is an objective truth to be found, and that it is their job to try to find it.

The INTJs's attitude is different, and that should be obvious to you if you have read Socionics LII type descriptions, Jung's description of introverted thinking, and studied the attitudes of real life LIIs/INTJs. LIIs are Subjectivists. They tend (as for example Kant) to relativize the notions of "truth" and "reality", and they are not interested in knowing things about objective reality itself, because it is the nature of to be more interested in the categories by which we comprehend or define reality. LIIs are not very much interested in facts about the universe, not primarily interested in getting more knowledge, but instead interested in understanding the mechanisms behind the thinking process. That is what philosophers are focused on. And it often leads them to become relativists of some sort, just as the Subjectivist attitude is described in the Reinin dichotomies, or as the INJ mindset is explained by Lenore Thomson: http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exe...rted_Intuition

Here is an important aspect of "Ni", according to Thomson, that is very characteristic of and very Kantian in spirit: "For INJs, patterns aren't 'out there' in the world, waiting to be discovered. They're part of us – the way we make sense of the riot of energy and information impinging on our systems."

So you think MBTT has the functions the wrong way round?

[Phaedrus]

So you think MBTT has the functions the wrong way round?

In a Jungian perspective (= according to how Jung understood the types), for the introverted types -- yes. But not if we look at the MBTT type desriptions as whole units, of course. Because MBTT has modified their understanding of the functions, as they are working together, to fit the real life behaviours and attitudes of the types. That's why Ti in MBTT is described as "holistic" and "non-linear" in contrast to Te, which is described as "systematic" and "linear" etc.

The problem is slightly more complicated than that, because there are still signs of in Ni, and there are signs of in Ti. But overall, the thought processes that we know are typical of INTPs (based on empirical research, self-reports, test results, etc.) and which are attributed to Ti in MBTT are more similar to than to .

We should also keep in mind that in the type profiles the functions are interwoven in a messy way in order to explain the observable behaviours and self-reported attitudes of the types. There is no 1-1 correlation between the functions in MBTT and Socionics, so we can't say that Ti = or that Ni = . It doesn't work that way. Leading Ti with auxiliary Ne capture the same attitudes as leading with creative in Socionics, but some INTP behaviour that is attributed to Ne in MBTT can be attributed to in Socionics, and so on. We must always look at the types as whole units that cannot be taken apart in a simple way.