What is the consensus on Filatova's descriptions?

[discojoe]

Are they considered accurate?

[XoX]

Are they considered accurate?

Some of them are considered more accurate than others. E.g. Gamma descriptions are considered more accurate than Alpha descriptions.

[discojoe]

Some of them are considered more accurate than others. E.g. Gamma descriptions are considered more accurate than Alpha descriptions.

Thank you.

[Gilly]

Where are these descriptions?

[Joy]

I don't particularly care for them. It's like... they're based too strongly on one or two people she's known of those types. Her SEE description is particularly horrible.

I do very much relate to her ILI description though.

[Phaedrus]

I don't particularly care for them. It's like... they're based too strongly on one or two people she's known of those types.

That is the problem with many (most? all?) socionic type descriptions. The LII type description at Lytov's site (from Weisband) is in its entirety solely based on Immanuel Kant's personal life, the ILI type description is solely based on Honoré de Balzac's life, etc.

[Phaedrus]

The INTj description begins with a Thomas Jefferson quote and goes on to quote Descartes multiple times..

But all the details about the INTj's behaviour can be found in biographies about Kant. Reading a biography about Kant is like reading an LII type description. Almost the same phrasings are there. And it was the same situation, perhaps even more accentuated, when I read a two volumes biography of Balzac. Balzac is chosen as the protype INTp (even though he clearly is not a typical INTp, and maybe even not an INTp at all), and everything described in the ILI profile has happened to Balzac in real life.

[Phaedrus]

Does Weisband go into detail somewhere else, in his own words, on who else he based his INTj description on?

I don't know.

[XoX]

I don't know.

Phaedrus I really need to quote this. Has this ever happened before?

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus I really need to quote this. Has this ever happened before?

Yes, many times. In fact, one of my most often used expressions when I was a kid -- and thus still young and stupid -- was "I don't know". But the more I have studied through the years that has passed since then, the less appropriate I have found the expression to be. Nowadays I only use it on special occasions ...

[XoX]

Yes, many times. In fact, one of my most often used expressions when I was a kid -- and thus still young and stupid -- was "I don't know". But the more I have studied through the years that has passed since then, the less appropriate I have found the expression to be. Nowadays I only use it on special occasions ...

Like weddings?

[Phaedrus]

Like weddings?

That was a good one ...

[XoX]

That was a good one ...

What do you think of the MBTI profiles at this site:
http://www.personalitypage.com/portraits.html

Would you say they are good or bad compared to other MBTI and socionics profiles you have read?

[Phaedrus]

What do you think of the MBTI profiles at this site:
http://www.personalitypage.com/portraits.html

Would you say they are good or bad compared to other MBTI and socionics profiles you have read?

They are not the best ones. I haven't evaluated and ranked every MBTT type description, but those at personalitypage might be worse than average. Hard to tell. I have read so many of them that they tend to blur into each other. My understanding of the types is based on many such descriptions. I can't say for sure which is the best I have seen.

[XoX]

They are not the best ones. I haven't evaluated and ranked every MBTT type description, but those at personalitypage might be worse than average. Hard to tell. I have read so many of them that they tend to blur into each other. My understanding of the types is based on many such descriptions. I can't say for sure which is the best I have seen.

OK. I asked because I think they are easy to read and kind of concrete. I don't know if the information content is good though. I am kind of exploring whether the MBTI type descriptions could be somehow useful to me. Socionics type descriptions often seem so weird and difficult to apply to yourself.

One more question: Why do people some say "MBTT" instead of "MBTI". Is it about being a snob or is there some better reason behind it? Do they mean the same thing or slightly different things? Where does the "T" come from? "Theory"?

[Phaedrus]

OK. I asked because I think they are easy to read and kind of concrete. I don't know if the information content is good though. I am kind of exploring whether the MBTI type descriptions could be somehow useful to me. Socionics type descriptions often seem so weird and difficult to apply to yourself.

Try this site: http://www.murraystate.edu/secsv/fye/m-b.htm

The descriptions there are at least slightly better than those at personalitypage.

One more question: Why do people some say "MBTT" instead of "MBTI". Is it about being a snob or is there some better reason behind it? Do they mean the same thing or slightly different things? Where does the "T" come from? "Theory"?

Yes. MBTT stands for Myers-Briggs Type Theory. MBTI stands for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Compare #34: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...t=19461&page=4

[krieger]

Best guesses of famous INTJs include Thomas Edison (who was given to almost daily inventions, upon which he was always improving); Richard Nixon (whose political genius made him a man ahead of his time, but whose grasp for control ultimately undid him); and Katherine Hepburn (whose private nature belies her take-charge, I'll-do-it-my-way style).

If we are to believe Rick about the types of the people that are mentioned, it is almost excluded that the author was speaking about socionics INTjs, OR had any idea of what he was talking about.

Rick:
Edison: ESTj
Nixon: ISFj
Hepburn: ENTj (seems to be removed from his page, but used to be there)

Edit: in response to the MBTT profiles that were posted; not Filatova's work

[Phaedrus]

If we are to believe Rick about the types of the people that are mentioned, it is almost excluded that the author was speaking about socionics INTjs, OR had any idea of what he was talking about.

He had no idea what he was talking about. He was of course talking about socionic INTjs, but he didn't know it. Many typologists don't know the true nature of the types in their own model. That is especially true of Enneagram practitioners.

[Exodus]

He had no idea what he was talking about. He was of course talking about socionic INTjs, but he didn't know it. Many typologists don't know the true nature of the types in their own model. That is especially true of Enneagram practitioners.

I agree only in the sense that artists do not decide what their art means.

[Expat]

Are they considered accurate?

I think they're good, giving an insight on types from a particular point of view.

I don't particularly care for them. It's like... they're based too strongly on one or two people she's known of those types. Her SEE description is particularly horrible.

Yes; if it is taken to mean that SEEs are going to really always behave in that precise way. I think, however, that even the SEE description is good in the sense that it gives an insight on how SEEs may come across to others at times.

I think that Filatova's descriptions should be read along with those of socioscope.com and Stratievskaya's.

Does Weisband go into detail somewhere else, in his own words, on who else he based his INTj description on?

We discussed his descriptions with him in Duesseldorf - not INTj in particular. He was more or less "assigned" the task - or saw it as his assignement - to write the first full set of socionics descriptions. I don't think he thinks he'd write them again like that, today.