Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
I like that introduction. I read it when I first came to the forum.
Ok cool.
I was wondering about the correlations bit between keirsey types (or was it MB types?) and Socionics...those are correct too then? Have you seen anything to contradict that? Your thoughts?
I think they're decent enough. What they do is explain the correlations (or lack thereof) socionists saw between two different types, and the socionics type different people with Myers-Briggs types identified most with. What they do not do is show that if you are XXXX then you are XXXx. Such an idea is foolish, and is only applied by people like Phaedrus, who don't really understand systems like socionics because they're so obsessed with correct logic.
It's not being obsessed with correct logic; it's being obsessed with perfect little Ti parallels that makes him reduce everything down to some one-dimensional level of "objective truth" lol.
Yes, correct logic. He thinks he is correct. Phaedrus' logic is actually good, and he likes to correct everyone else's poor logic. What is disgraceful about Phaedrus' thoughts are his really shitty premises.
His logic is internally consistent but it frequently lacks any accurate reference to external data.
Exactly. That's why he needs to be exterminated.
Fuck yes.
What about the few types that did seem to correlate across systems?
Wait, did that sentence make sense?
We've been through this so many times, especially here:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...t=11502&page=3
That discussion remains relevant.
Obviously there are overlaps between the two systems, in as far as it will be difficult to find cases where someone could be reasonably typed as EII in socionics and ESTP in Myers-Briggs. Etc.,
Yet the most interesting "correlations" in that study are:
- 52 of the Russians thought that Keirsey's INTJ was a SLE and 32 thought it was a LIE, against only 9 who thought it was a LII;
- 62 thought that the ESTP was a SEE and 24 thought it was a ESE, against only 5 who thought it was a SLE;
- 50 thought the INTP was a LII, against only 22 who thought it was a ILI
And so on and so forth.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Also, if you actually look at the figures - not just at the "blue line" - it is clear that the only types where there is a decent correlation are these:
- ENFP - IEE
- ENTP - ILE
- ISFP - SEI
- ISTP - SLI
Thank you, Expat and Jxrtes.
Now I'm wondering, do you think that those correlations mean anything? The ISTP, ISFP, ENTP, ENFP ones. Are there still going to be significant amounts of ENTps that aren't ENTPs? Could you safely say:
A) If you're an ENTp, you are most likely going to be an ENTP
or
B) If you're an ENTp, there's no telling what kiersy type you might be
or
C) If you're an ENTp, you'll probably be x,y, or z kiersy type
ENTp's are mostly ENTP's, but they can also be INTPs and ENFPs.
And the other three types? ENFps, ISFps, and ISTps?
Do most socionics-savy people agree with what you said?
ENFps will most likely be ENFPs, but I could also see INFP and a slim chance of ENTP. The ISFps will probably be ISFPs most of the time. And ISTps will mostly be ISTPs.
edit: I doubt many people would disagree. I merely illustrated general correlations which have held true IME (I used to study mbti, so I know the types well).
Last edited by strrrng; 10-06-2008 at 08:56 PM. Reason: adding shit
Obviously Phaedrus is going to say that he is correct and that those hundred Russian socionists are all wrong.
Wow. He hasn't showed up. Maybe he's on vacation.
K. One last question...thanks so much guys...ahem..
Would you all say that it is a rarity for ENTPs, ISFPs, ENFPs, and ISTPs to be something other than their same type in socionics?
Rare for an ENTP to not be an ENTp. Rare for an ISFP to not be an ISFp. Etc. ????
EDIT: NVM. I guess you guys already answered that but in different words. Or well Strrrng did. What do the rest of you guys think?
Last edited by Robot; 10-07-2008 at 04:43 AM.
That is the problem of some Myers-Briggs sites, and typelogic in particular. The confusion between ISFps and ISFJs, even as far as that site is concerned, is much less likely if you look at the main description of the types, rather than at the descriptions of functions - which often don't make much sense in M-B.
???
I def coorelate with ISFP. I actually have not heard of an ENTP who wasn't a ENTp or an ISFP who wasn't ISFp also.
D-SEI9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
Are you guys saying yes it is rare?
If you are asking as to how people of those socionics types will tend to test in MBTI, or even be typed by Myers-Briggs professionals, I think it will be not rare at all for IEEs to be typed as INFP or ENTP; for ILEs to be typed as INTP or ENFP; for SLIs to be typed as INTP. And I think that the more you understand socionics, the less point you will see in even bothering about Myers-Briggs.
As a whole the MBTT works. The type descriptions IMO are far better than socionics descriptions....as in I can type people correctly solely using descriptions....well then again I've been familiar withe the MB for years now.
The only thing that I can see that is a little off is the functions which is one of the things that socionics does well.
Socionics is more complex and goes in depth more. The MBTT is still valid though IMO. It's not just a bunch of fluff. To say you are X MBTT type actually means something.
Are there any large sample sizes that shows what people's MBTT and Socionics types are? A big enough size to where you can actually draw conclusions? I want numbers. Percentages. Something tells me there's no such data. Oh well, I thought I'd ask.
Do you have any idea how many socionics beginners go through precisely the same steps as you are going now? Do you think you are raising any issues that haven't been raised lots of times before?
Spend some time doing some research on the forum's old threads - you'll be amazed at what you'll find.
Yes, you just told me twice.
Why would I want to go digging through old threads when this is much faster and easier?
If you find it waste of forum space go ahead and delete it. You're a mod afterall.
Also, apart from the percentages, I already knew what I thought, about all of it. I was getting at something else in a very round about way on purpose.
Well, I think some MBTT descriptions are better than socionic descriptions, but MBTT has got the function descriptions and function order wrong, especially for introverts. I also think MBTT professionals confuse intelligence with N.
Because the theory behind socionics makes more sense, I prefer socionics to MBTT. It gives more tools for typing people. Because the theory is more correct, it opens up more possibilities for instance sub types, romantic attitudes-ie aggressor infantile etc, and quadra values. This makes socionics more useful, and interesting to me.
However I think MBTT is more focused on practical applications. It's just that what it has behind the descriptions doesn't make sense. So you can use both, or look to make socionics more applicable yourself. Socionics can also be used as a tool for, well, intellectual masturbation, like you might see happening here everyso often, I guess that can be useful also - perhaps it would be best to say it can be a mental exercise though
What is it you are getting at, in a roundabout way?
It's not faster if you get little to no response, and you might actually get far more information - in less time - if you'd botter to take a look at the older threads.
"Waste of forum space" is not one of my criteria for deleting threads, and my comment to you has nothing at all with that.
Then to answer your question, there have been quite a few threads of people here giving their MBTT and socionics types. The results were inconclusive, for many reasons - a major reason being that there is no standard way for typing anyone in socionics, so people's types are always in dispute.
You seemed to have a problem with me asking these questions in this thread so I took a guess at why that was. Apparently it's not a problem though.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
