Your type in MBTI and Socionics thread

[Amber]

In this tread I would like to hear about your personal correspondences between the two. I won't send you away if you start to theorize about what the correlation should be. In fact it's interesting. And yet I'm kind of looking for your opinions on your own types here and how you got to type that way. Is it about the same functions ?? anyone who types totally different things , like their Id or Super id functions ? I guess stuff like LSE Si - ISTJ is everyday. Tell me about the more awesome . Can you be a Logical type in one and Ethical in another ? why and how ?
I

[Anglas]

I'm ESFP in mbti (I took test 3 years ago, i have no idea who I am now in that system) and LIE in socionics

[Suz]

fairly consistent INFJ on MBTI tests
currently self-type SEI in socionics, but could be another alpha type.

p.s. I came to the forum self-typing IEI initially because of the stupid "conversion" guideline I saw on socionics.com (INFJ in MBTI = INFp in socionics). I did NOT fit in with beta. My current self-type isn't too far off of that, but as you can see, you can't really convert between the two systems. Typing in each requires a different thought process.

[aisa]

fairly consistent INFJ on MBTI tests
currently self-type SEI in socionics, but could be another alpha type.

p.s. I came to the forum self-typing IEI initially because of the stupid "conversion" guideline I saw on socionics.com (INFJ in MBTI = INFp in socionics). I did NOT fit in with beta. My current self-type isn't too far off of that, but as you can see, you can't really convert between the two systems. Typing in each requires a different thought process.

My current stance is that the conversion should work and if it doesn't, then it is likely a mistype in one (or both) of the systems.
Essentially, once a person has a knowledge of how information elements manifest and finds their correct socionics type, then I'd say the conversion into MBTI (straightforward for extroverted types and with j/p switch for introverts) should "work" and could be a double-check of sorts. Socionics is more accurate, though.

[Words]

My current stance is that the conversion should work and if it doesn't, then it is likely a mistype in one (or both) of the systems.
Essentially, once a person has a knowledge of how information elements manifest and finds their correct socionics type, then I'd say the conversion into MBTI (straightforward for extroverted types and with j/p switch for introverts) should "work" and could be a double-check of sorts. Socionics is more accurate, though.

MBTI tests focus much more on typically regarded extraverted traits than socionics, or maybe even Jung does, so i'm not convinced people are the same types on each system.

It's like the old saying, an apple isn't an orange because they are fruits.

[Aylen]

I took the MBTI like 50 times, or more, over the years and consistently get INFJ but also a couple of INFP results, because I was focused on a specific version of me that I wanted to be, which was INFP, like my sister, and it seemed like the better type in descriptions (sibling jealousy). I think she influenced me 'cause I got INFP during the times she and I were very close. Her Fi seems intrusive to me sometimes though and she takes it way too serious. :/

I remember getting ENFJ once when I was like 20, and it fit me for a short time. Although that could be related to my sx/sp instincts too. I also did the Keirsey Temperament (paid for that twice. 8 years apart. ugh) and I got INFJ both times. I took the questions very serious and answered with full awareness of what was being asked, because I was paying for it and I wanted to know the "truth".

I get IEI on pretty much every socionics test I have taken. The very first one I took was ILI though. I think that was more wishful thinking on my part, in relation to logic, and considering myself pretty logical the day I took it so my answers were directed more toward thinking.

Growing up with an EII sister (if my life depended on me choosing one type correctly for someone I know it would be her) I think we highly influenced each other. I mean it was just the two of us alone for hours a day for many years. She has never scored anything on MBTI but INFP.

My thoughts are intertwining today so not sure if any of this is useful.

Edit: If you put my sister and me in a room together for any length of time, and you had even a base knowledge of functions, you would see that we process things differently.

[aisa]

MBTI tests focus much more on typically regarded extraverted traits than socionics, or maybe even Jung does, so i'm not convinced people are the same types on each system.

It's like the old saying, an apple isn't an orange because they are fruits.

Well, I said nothing about MBTI tests, cause they are imo very easily leading to mistypes. But I do think that if smn gets their type correct in socionics, then the transition back into MBTI should work. Unless you take the subtypes into consideration, then this leaves the E/I notation when moving back into MBTI questionable.

[Words]

Well, I said nothing about MBTI tests, cause they are imo very easily leading to mistypes. But I do think that if smn gets their type correct in socionics, then the transition back into MBTI should work. Unless you take the subtypes into consideration, then this leaves the E/I notation when moving back into MBTI questionable.

It's fraught with difficulties as how to determine which function is dominant without using Jung but using MBTI

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...-attitudes.htm

Basically you might think if someone gets their type right in socionics then the transition to MBTI should work, but based on what when everything is sort of described differently.

But to give examples, I am apparently LSE in socionics and ISTP in MBTI. There are users here with similar problems even when a paid for MBTI practitioner has evaluated their type.

But the real question is, why would you (I presume) want them to be interchangeable at least in their current format?

[Aylen]

Well, I said nothing about MBTI tests, cause they are imo very easily leading to mistypes. But I do think that if smn gets their type correct in socionics, then the transition back into MBTI should work. Unless you take the subtypes into consideration, then this leaves the E/I notation when moving back into MBTI questionable.

I don't go by subtypes since I think they are complicating something which isn't that complicated. People on the other hand are complicated, well some of them. The base function is what I look for first, then I look for creative and demonstrative. Not always easy telling them all apart unless you do have base knowledge of all functions, which I don't. I mostly pay attention to the use of functions I know, so it is harder for me to see a Te type and know right away they are Te. I believe subtypes can easily be explained by Etype and instincts and adding DCNH takes the focus off the base function. If I don't see, Ni for example, in a person no subtype is going to change my mind. I think it leads to a lot of "mistypes". I mean people are different because they are different. Why keep adding different subtypes to explain. It makes the whole theory convoluted.. Do I sound harsh today... I feel like that was a little harsh.

[aisa]

I don't go by subtypes since I think they are complicating something which isn't that complicated. People on the other hand are complicated, well some of them. The base function is what I look for first, then I look for creative and demonstrative. Not always easy telling them all apart unless you do have base knowledge of all functions, which I don't. I mostly pay attention to the use of functions I know, so it is harder for me to see a Te type and know right away they are Te. I believe subtypes can easily be explained by Etype and instincts and adding DCNH takes the focus off the base function. If I don't see, Ni for example, in a person no subtype is going to change my mind. I think it leads to a lot of "mistypes". I mean people are different because they are different. Why keep adding different subtypes to explain. It makes the whole theory convoluted.. Do I sound harsh today... I feel like that was a little harsh.

nah, it wasn't harsh, I see what you mean, but for clarification purposes I wasn't talking about DCNH (not a fan), but about the 2 subtype system, so in case of IEI - IEI-Ni and IEI-Fe.
I actually agree with what you said.

[Mega]

ESTJ MBTI and SLE socionics

(fuck u galen)

[Galen]

LSE MBTI

The three letter notation is proprietary IP of socionics only. MBTI must use four letter notation pls.


INFP + IEE

[Rhaegar]

Typology began with an MBTI test for me and I spent a great deal of time researching it after, which thankfully lead me to socionics. I find that socionics sharpened my understanding of typology substantially as there is less vagueness in the element descriptions and a greater degree of practically applicable techniques and recognizable behaviors. I feel like MBTI is similar to children's books that teach us to read, whereas socionics has a more young adult flavor. It is extremely easy to go back to MBTI from socionics but not vice versa.

My original MBTI test result was INTJ. While elements of that description sounded relatable, I quickly began to consider INTP after reading the profiles closest to the INTJ because of the more laid back approach and the "sense of impending failure" quote in one of the profiles. I found that I didn't believe I was a J but I simply couldn't identify with having Ti as a base function. I considered INFJ as well but it didn't really fit at all as I couldn't recall ever being fond of Fe in any context. I did notice I was concious of the fact that I didn't resonate well in group moods and environments and thought perhaps that might have been auxillary Fe, but heavily supressed and unvalued. That didn't really make sense at all so I kept it as an outlier. Ni in MBTI related systems is also described terribly. I couldn't recall being "mystical" or "clairvoyant", just forward thinking and careful. MBTI does a terrible job of describing a base function and the depth to which you take it for granted, or fail to realize others can't even begin to realize what it means in that context. I Think they have the rational emelents down but their descriptions of percieving elements is just all over the place.

I remember reading the socionics ILI descriptions and just being blown away by comparison. So much more depth and sense. I especially liked the Filatova and Stratievskaya descriptions. I felt a special sense of being understood and became immediately interested. That's when I stopped trying to muddle through the mess that is personality cafe, where sensing types are dumb and NT's rule and all that other stupid shit. Also no more of that INTPs should be with ENFJs garbage either. Intertype relations have made me understand so many things about life and why different people do and don't get along. Ultimately, socionics has made me realize that being myself is better than trying to fake it because there truly are people out there who will appreciate what you have to offer. What a silly amount of research it took me to learn a simple life lesson.

In any case I suppose that makes me an INTJ in MBTI and a socionics INTp, which fits.

[Pink]

INFJ in MBTI + IEE or SEI in Socionics.

[aisa]

It's fraught with difficulties as how to determine which function is dominant without using Jung but using MBTI

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...-attitudes.htm

Basically you might think if someone gets their type right in socionics then the transition to MBTI should work, but based on what when everything is sort of described differently.

But to give examples, I am apparently LSE in socionics and ISTP in MBTI. There are users here with similar problems even when a paid for MBTI practitioner has evaluated their type.

ok, well, I was being lazy with just not writing out what I think in detail.

 

Socionics trumps MBTI imo because it's more likely to lead smn into actually learning the IEs and understanding whether the typing is correct and how IEs manifest, whereas MBTI seems less organised.

And I too do know about a case of a friend who was evaluated at work by paid for MBTI staff who told people by the end of the session - "you know, look at the results, but also at all the other types, cause we tend to adapt our behaviours and your test results might not be reliable." This kind of undermines the whole exercise, lol. Although it proves to be right sometimes, especially for people who were forced by life circumstances to act out of character in order to survive in unfriendly conditions (be it family-wise or work-wise).

However, when I think about people I know who took the MBTI tests - their results in most cases correspond with socionics (with j/p switch for introversion). Cases in which they don't match up are either people of introverted subtypes of extroverted types or the other way around in two-subtype Socionics divide and/or Enneagram 9s and/or instinct stackings are skewing results and/or struggling with depression.
(I'm not saying that this is your case, just saying that's how it works with people I know irl.)
I know a person who is in Socionics ESFp (sp/sx) who tests as ISFP in MBTI and a person who is in Socionics ISFp (e9 so/sx) who tests as ESFP in MBTI.

But yeah, in cases where things don't match up directly the explanations require employing other systems such as i.e. Enneagram and I can understand that smn might say this is too much of a hassle.

Also, imo the way a lot of free online MBTI-inspired tests are constructed is overtly simplified and they just work in a way that if you like to spend a lot of time with people = E, if not = I, if you report relying on intuition = N, if not = S, if you say facts trump feelings = T, if feelings trump facts = F, if you're judgemental = J, if not = P.
That's a pretty vast oversimplification and has hardly anything to do with MBTI functions.

Regarding the example you give - do you identify with LSE in socionics IE-wise and description-wise and with ISTP in MBTI function-wise and description-wise? Do you relate to both LSEs in socionics forums and to ISTPs in MBTI forums?
Or are you just referring strictly to tests' results only?

But the real question is, why would you (I presume) want them to be interchangeable at least in their current format?

To say that I would want them to be interchangeable is presuming my investment in this. I don't feel too invested tbh. I don't have a problem with smn saying they find these systems not relating to each other.
I disagree, cause I see too many similarities to be able to say "these are completely different systems and should be treated as completely separate."
But still, if smn considers otherwise - that's their right to their own opinion.
And I can agree that they are not fully interchangeable, especially with current tests' format, yet still I think they're more interchangeable than not. That's just my opinion.

[chemical]

Well first of all, mbti the instrument is an utterly horrible measure of what functions one employs. Whether it by itself is a good inventory is a separate story --- for that, one has to read the MBTI manual and figure out what kinds of info it gathers. It's driven by the kind of mass-data gathering that the Big 5 is.

So what does one mean by "MBTI"? It can mean a) the functions-model employed commonly, using definitions like those in Dario Nardi's and Linda Berens' work. Or b) the type dichotomies, which seem to relate more to the Big 5 than they do to the functions-models.

In the b) option, it's ludicrous to suggest an INTP is a closer cousin to (or at least has some important collective similarities to) ENTJ than it is to say, INTJ (which roughly happens in socionics) --- this is because the type dichotomies are formulated based mostly on independent scales, whereas the TeNi and NiTe models in say sociotype are based clearly on the premise of interaction between information elements in meaningful ways. In type dichotomies, EJ and IP are just two opposites. In socionics, these opposites complement each other as a unit making up the ego of a given type.

OTOH if you look at option a) then one could conjecture that there should be a more inclusive theory of information elements which bridges any gaps between the two. But even this is problematic, as the interpretation of type dynamics in option a) hinges on the formulas associated to types by Isabel Myers i.e. INTJ=> NiTe, and so forth, so the philosophical underpinning of what is "NiTe" becomes quite different. The ILI's version of NiTe fits the IP temperament. The MBTI's version of NiTe tends to slant some weird version of a J temperament.

The problem there is that by most associations, whether to socionics or to Jung, the typical MBTI descriptions of P/J really seem to map closer to irrational/rational (albeit a very simplified version of irrational/rational), than they do to the purported extraverted perceiving+introverted judging/extraverted judging+introverted perceiving combinations.

[chemical]

That all said, my position is closest to saying, more often than not the discrepancies strike me more as BS in how MBTI functions theory was founded than as legitimate differences. Some of this extends to Jung's own ideas, but 90% of it is perversion of his ideas.

I'm not a worshipper of socionics as the "heir to Jung" but I think it at least formulates the major personality features by quadra -- grouping people by valued functions. The MBTI functions proponents purport to say that their dichotomies INTP and INTJ should be very different because no functions in common. Which is nothing but nonsense -- what's actually true is that INTJs aren't necessarily NiTe, and INTPs aren't necessarily TiNe.

So to the extent I suggest using MBTI, I suggest using it more as a personality inventory based on mass data collection e.g. the big 5, than as a theory of information patterns.

For functions, all I've used comes from Jung/socionics.

[chemical]

Oh the only other noteworthy thing about functions-model vs model A differences: the weakest functions only half match. That is, where a ILE has feeling-Polr, an ENTP has tertiary Fe. These superficially look similar (since ILE has Fe-HA) until one realizes that in the common appealed to 8 functions model by most MBTI practitioners, pioneered by John Beebe, the ego functions for ENTP are NeTiFeSi, the unconscious ones are NiTeFiSe. The analogue here in socionics would be NeTiSeFi as the conscious and the unconscious the rest.
In other words, the "valued" functions in socionics are the ego functions in MBTI/Beebe.
And demonic-Se sure doesn't sound like Role-Se. If anything sounds more like a polr. Except it's shadowy rather than the conscious point of vulnerability, which to Beebe is the Anima/Animus (4th).

[The Exception]

On MBTI, I identify most with INTP. On MBTI tests, typically I score high on I and N with the other two letters being more iffy. Cognitive function-wise, INTP makes the most sense. Dominant Ti, Auxiliary Ne.
LII in socionics but sometimes I'll test as another type such as ILI or EII. Socionics tests aren't very good. Also not everyone agrees with my LII assessment.

[Hays]

Typed by an MBTI practitioner who has known me personally for many years as INTP with the only other possible type being INFP.
Tests gave INXX.

[Aylen]

I just have to wonder if your base function doesn't match up in both systems if it has nothing to do with the tests but due to other factors, including lack of self-awareness or lack of understanding when reading the questions. Absurd actually said something about this that was very enlightening for me. I know I have struggled with some questions in the past and I had to ask others for feedback to determine what context the question was asked. That is why I like to take the tests with my friends around for input. Not that I go with what they think over what I feel but at least we can somewhat agree on what is being asked.

[chemical]

Well there are two camps on subtypes -- there's the camp that is confident they can get the general gist of a person and then see the other divergences as simply two people of the same type being different.

Then there's the camp that isn't confident in putting those people in the same category and has to keep inventing ways of explaining everything, because who is to say those divergences don't contradict the two people belonging to the same category? So one defines what it means to belong to a category more precisely, defines what a subtype means relative to a type more, and then sees if this new framework captures what's going on better.

I fall into the latter, as I don't think of the 16 types as nearly as clear, and I tend to err on the side that people who are constantly doubting their type are doing so not because they haven't done the requisite self-work, but because the categories are too coarse.

That said, I recognize the merit of getting the general gist...I think it just depends where your bias lies when type diagnosis is challenging. Those who don't think it's challenging, I daresay just haven't seen the hoardes of people who study typology for a long time and genuinely don't feel convinced of a type. It's very clear for some people because the laws the system is painting just apply in a neat way to them. Empirical data is messy, no matter how beautiful the theory is (hence why I stick to the latter but complexify it time and again to not lose track entirely of the former).

Hard to hide that I pretty much love Gulenko's style of inventing more and more subtheories. One doesn't have to apply them exactly and can invent one's own subtheories -- but talking about these subtheories is to me satisfying rather than sticking with the original.

[Aylen]

Well there are two camps on subtypes -- there's the camp that is confident they can get the general gist of a person and then see the other divergences as simply two people of the same type being different.

Then there's the camp that isn't confident in putting those people in the same category and has to keep inventing ways of explaining everything, because who is to say those divergences don't contradict the two people belonging to the same category? So one defines what it means to belong to a category more precisely, defines what a subtype means relative to a type more, and then sees if this new framework captures what's going on better.

I fall into the latter, as I don't think of the 16 types as nearly as clear, and I tend to err on the side that people who are constantly doubting their type are doing so not because they haven't done the requisite self-work, but because the categories are too coarse.

That said, I recognize the merit of getting the general gist...I think it just depends where your bias lies when type diagnosis is challenging. Those who don't think it's challenging, I daresay just haven't seen the hoardes of people who study typology for a long time and genuinely don't feel convinced of a type.

So it no longer becomes a somewhat cohesive theory? You could keep adding subtypes and descriptions until you reach the conclusion that people are in fact different, even if they may process information in a similar manner. I start with the idea that people are different and I don't really contemplate their differences unless it is personal to me, then I take what is offered in the simplest form and try to match things ups. I guess I am not as good as focusing on all the possibilities in determining type. It would take too much energy that I prefer to spend elsewhere. I have looked into so many personality theories (gonna throw astrology into the mix too) over the years and realized for myself they all pretty much say the same thing about me. I find it more fun than challenging but I don't take it very serious, unless I do.

[chemical]

So it no longer becomes a somewhat cohesive theory? You could keep adding subtypes and descriptions until you reach the conclusion that people are in fact different, even if they may process information in a similar manner.

Well one thing embedded in my post there is that I don't really categorize people. I categorize types --- which people can "loosely" be said to belong to, to varying extents. To me, the question is at what point do I understand what T, F, N, S, etc are actually about, and their many inter-relations, symmetries, dichotomies, etc. Or rather, with socionics, F, E, S, T, etc.

In terms of how similar people are, well it all depends at what point someone accepts that two people are exhibiting similar, "typical" orientations to things --- if two purported similar people are very different, to the extent those differences pertain to the theory, I consider the theory expandable. To the extent they are just empirically different but theoretically the same, I'm fine keeping things as is.

[Words]

So it no longer becomes a somewhat cohesive theory? You could keep adding subtypes and descriptions until you reach the conclusion that people are in fact different, even if they may process information in a similar manner. I start with the idea that people are different and I don't really contemplate their differences unless it is personal to me, then I take what is offered in the simplest form and try to match things ups. I guess I am not as good as focusing on all the possibilities in determining type. It would take too much energy that I prefer to spend elsewhere. I have looked into so many personality theories (gonna throw astrology into the mix too) over the years and realized for myself they all pretty much say the same thing about me. I find it more fun than challenging but I don't take it very serious, unless I do.

Thank you for being a genius in my book.

There's 16 types, 6 billion people, no need to take this theory to explain each with their own individuality.

Common sense must prevail, or not lol

Really I see your approach as N, you get the whole picture without specifics, for me it is just reality of life, or sth..

[chemical]

In case that last paragraph sounds obtuse, it's like this: types are like pure forms, such as triangles or absolute shapes. People fit those shapes to some degree or not. Two instances of a triangle which are empirically different but theoretically the same might be a plastic triangle and a metallic triangle.
However, if I notice that one person is an isosceles triangle and another is an equilateral triangle, those need to be further classified, because they are theoretically significant variations.

[Words]

Well one thing embedded in my post there is that I don't really categorize people. I categorize types --- which people can "loosely" be said to belong to, to varying extents. To me, the question is at what point do I understand what T, F, N, S, etc are actually about, and their many inter-relations, symmetries, dichotomies, etc. Or rather, with socionics, F, E, S, T, etc.

In terms of how similar people are, well it all depends at what point someone accepts that two people are exhibiting similar, "typical" orientations to things --- if two purported similar people are very different, to the extent those differences pertain to the theory, I consider the theory expandable. To the extent they are just empirically different but theoretically the same, I'm fine keeping things as is.

How can you categorise types without intrinsically categorising people?

[Aylen]

Well one thing embedded in my post there is that I don't really categorize people. I categorize types --- which people can "loosely" be said to belong to, to varying extents. To me, the question is at what point do I understand what T, F, N, S, etc are actually about, and their many inter-relations, symmetries, dichotomies, etc. Or rather, with socionics, F, E, S, T, etc.

In terms of how similar people are, well it all depends at what point someone accepts that two people are exhibiting similar, "typical" orientations to things --- if two purported similar people are very different, to the extent those differences pertain to the theory, I consider the theory expandable. To the extent they are just empirically different but theoretically the same, I'm fine keeping things as is.

I am not sure if I can follow this right now. It seems like you are saying you just look at the data aspect and not as interested in how it applies to yourself or real people? I will read again later.

[Words]

In case that last paragraph sounds obtuse, it's like this: types are like pure forms, such as triangles or absolute shapes. People fit those shapes to some degree or not. Two instances of a triangle which are empirically different but theoretically the same might be a plastic triangle and a metallic triangle.
However, if I notice that one person is an isosceles triangle and another is an equilateral triangle, those need to be further classified, because they are theoretically significant variations.

OK so there's no point in further categorisations then?

[chemical]

The essence of this is the difference between, in physics, marking a theoretical law to its purest absolute form, and then realizing that you rarely have controlled conditions in reality in which it will apply exactly. But the point of isolating the absolute form is that you want to know precisely what laws correspond to what ideas at work. That's why thought experiments like where you assume conditions which can only occur theoretically can be useful in understanding reality.

It isn't quite about interest in applying so much as the place of the theory itself! The people can be viewed like I said as instances of the abstracted theory to varying degrees.

OK so there's no point in further categorisations then?

Well the answer is in the quoted post -- there's two sides to this. There's no point categorizing empirical variations that are theoretically insignificant, as part of the theory. But if they are theoretically significant variations, then yes they must be categorized (for the same reason two Se-leads must be distinguished into SeTi and SeFi).

[chemical]

I think those who don't really see the difference here would get it better if they asked themselves why there's a split into theoreticians and empirical work. It's not some ridiculous thing like the theoreticians don't want to have something which turns out a powerful tool in getting reality. They're just domains of emphasis, whose practice and advancement can proceed very differently.

So yes in a sense you can't talk about force, mass, etc without them having something to do withactual objects. But having only this perspective belies the way the fields work. Pretty soon people talk of force, mass, etc as if they are purely constructed based on certain equations and theoretical relations, and the problems to be addressed get formulated in a way quite removed from actual objects. People also theorize things based on such relations which don't yet have a basis in experiment or actual objects -- this would be impossible if there weren't an element of pure thought experiments going on. It takes on a speculative flavor.

[chemical]

How can you categorise types without intrinsically categorising people?

People rarely fall into a (theoretically well-defined) type neatly --- types driven by mass data collection, well maybe there's a higher likelihood, as those are empiricist-friendly typological methods. Types are to me theoretical orientations of consciousness. So they are more of a thought experiment to me than necessarily descriptions of people.

The extent to which these experiments get at people meaningfully is of course important, but it is a serious issue besides the thought experiments.

The problem with the mass data collection methods is that you don't ever understand what the ideas are at work in a precise way.

The methodology of mass data methods is to see what personality traits statistically tend to co-vary, so your categories are empirical from the very start, i.e. they really and truly correspond to the preferences of certain people. This is quite similar to what Isabel Myers did to place CG Jung's theory on an empirical foundation, but as can be readily seen, it didn't result in nearly a perfect fit to his ideas --- in fact overly divergent at times. Theoretically defined type models instead take certain patterns isolated within individuals, and speculate that these patterns can be categorized according to certain well-defined relations between theoretical ideas.
They then take the inter-relations of these ideas as the basis of the way the types can form, and instead ask to what extent the data fits these theoretically well-defined relations.
With the empiricist methodology you tend not to have such well-defined relations.

[Words]

The essence of this is the difference between, in physics, marking a theoretical law to its purest absolute form, and then realizing that you rarely have controlled conditions in reality in which it will apply exactly. But the point of isolating the absolute form is that you want to know precisely what laws correspond to what ideas at work. That's why thought experiments like where you assume conditions which can only occur theoretically can be useful in understanding reality.

It isn't quite about interest in applying so much as the place of the theory itself! The people can be viewed like I said as instances of the abstracted theory to varying degrees.



Well the answer is in the quoted post -- there's two sides to this. There's no point categorizing empirical variations that are theoretically insignificant, as part of the theory. But if they are theoretically significant variations, then yes they must be categorized (for the same reason two Se-leads must be distinguished into SeTi and SeFi).

That's already part of the 16 types.

Seems to me one has to remember there are apparently ways of 'processing' info (socionics) and personality. I've yet to see sub types which don't impinge on the latter, as each one comes with a description of the person.

If you follow me as one of your hotpicks lol you'll see how I point out the dangers of type descriptions. In a nutshell, to indivially classify one of the 6 billion odd people a simple one on one conversation can suffice, not socionics

[chemical]

I've yet to see sub types which don't impinge on the latter, as each one comes with a description of the person.

If you follow me as one of your hotpicks lol you'll see how I point out the dangers of type descriptions.

Well then I think we've got roughly the same perspective --- like I said, I don't think pointing out every last empirical quirk someone can have is relevant, if it's not illuminating the main ideas the theory is going for. That would be useless because why even have categories of < 6 billion to categorize 6 billion people -- might as well examine each individual person one on one

And as you probably can tell, I don't follow the socionists in how I think of subtypes. I think the idea of further categorization is good. But not necessarily how they go about it.

FWIW type descriptions can be a problem not just with subtypes but with the main types too.

[chemical]

That's already part of the 16 types.

That is -- but it was just an example. Notice Jung only described 8 types, and then now the default is 16 after Myers, socionics, etc. If you think that model A fully covers everything you ever need to know about the 8 IE, and their interplays, fine, but I don't find it is so for my needs, so I categorize it further in my own mind. Some of the subtype theories are insightful on some counts, but when they get at empirical quirks rather than substantial new theoretical phenomena, I agree they're useless.

[Words]

That is -- but it was just an example. Notice Jung only described 8 types, and then now the default is 16 after Myers, socionics, etc. If you think that model A fully covers everything you ever need to know about the 8 IE, and their interplays, fine, but I don't find it is so for my needs, so I categorize it further in my own mind. Some of the subtype theories are insightful on some counts, but when they get at empirical quirks rather than substantial new theoretical phenomena, I agree they're useless.

Sorry pal but he spoke about that each of the eight types has an auxiliary function, so essentially resulting in 16 types, if you're curious PM me and we can talk, or I can kiss and tell heh...

[chemical]

^ I agree he mentioned the auxiliary functions at the end of Chapter X, but his emphasis was doggedly on describing pure, one-function based types, and in his opening to Psychological Types he mentioned people can quite generally be categorized by one psychological function that predominates in them, and in his type descriptions, he frequently painted all three functions besides the dominant as inferior and unconscious. He did not give more than one-line descriptions of a few of the 16 types, like ST=practical thinking and so forth.
Originally he thought there were only two types -- introvert and extravert. Introvert to him EQUALED the thinking type and Extravert EQUALED the feeling type.

Also if you read his paragraph on the auxiliary closely, he is saying the auxiliary is essentially a slave to the dominant, and that any independent intervention on its part contradicts that imposed by the dominant, hence why only one function can be termed truly conscious, be granted absolute sovereignty and so forth, and to Jung, consciousness is about relatedness to the ego. This surely is why he emphasized description of 8 function-attitude types rather than describing 16 separately.

As time went on, his ideas on what was going on grew more sophisticated. He even decided that some people have two auxiliary functions well developed and only one inferior function, which flies in the face of 16 types being the default. Where he began with 2 types, he eventually branched out hugely.

I find the same applies to the 16 types --- where Jung branched out from 2, we can branch out from 16.

[Words]

^ I agree he mentioned the auxiliary functions at the end of Chapter X, but his emphasis was doggedly on describing pure, one-function based types, and in his opening to Psychological Types he mentioned people can quite generally be categorized by one psychological function that predominates in them, and in his type descriptions, he frequently painted all three functions besides the dominant as inferior and unconscious. He did not give more than one-line descriptions of a few of the 16 types, like ST=practical thinking and so forth.
Originally he thought there were only two types -- introvert and extravert. Introvert to him EQUALED the thinking type and Extravert EQUALED the feeling type.

As time went on, his ideas on what was going on grew more sophisticated.

I find the same applies to the 16 types.

Sure he said people can be categorised by their lead function but also he said each one has an auxiliary, eg logic pairs well with sensation and equally well with intuition.

This is 16 types and therefore not a product of socionics or MBTI, right?

As for him thinking initially there were only two types I and E can't fault a pioneer who finds more stuff. Damn I used to think there was only male/female, but there's... Auxiliary ones also, cheers.

[chemical]

@Words but are you getting my main point here --- the big, major, underlying point here is that Jung branched out, as and how he developed more sophisticated ideas. There's no reason to stick to 16 types or 8 or 100 unless it describes what you wish.
There are definitely bad reasons to branch out, but there are obviously good reasons too.

Again, Jung started with 1 auxiliary..which was given minimal importance in Psychological Types and portrayed as a slave to the dominant with little independent say. Then he said there can be two auxiliaries and 3 relatively well developed functions. Originally 2 types only. I mean...is it not clear he is branching out, expanding his ideas?

[Words]

@Words but are you getting my main point here --- the big, major, underlying point here is that Jung branched out, as and how he developed more sophisticated ideas. There's no reason to stick to 16 types or 8 or 100 unless it describes what you wish.
There are definitely bad reasons to branch out, but there are obviously good reasons too.

That's true, but Jung got it neatly putting functions in conscious and unconscious territory, so really for a tight package I don't see how to elucidate further on the closed system presented as a working model unless there's more functions to be added.

Something interesting me recently is whether the woman got it right representing the functions in what is referred to as model A.