Russian/Western Type Discrepancies

[jason_m]

I've been reading some Russian-translated type descriptions and so forth and I've noticed some differences between the Western notions of type and the Russian descriptions and typings.

ILE: I've noticed that the English ILE descriptions are similar to the Russian descriptions. However, this forum seems to think that ILEs are primarily E7s and are rarely E5s. Take a look at this type benchmark list obtained from Russian socionists: Translated version of http://www.famo.ru//etalon.php

Most every ILE on this list whose Enneagram type I know of is E5. There don't appear to be any E7s. Note that this does not mean, in my eyes, that ILEs are primarily E5s or that E7 ILEs are rare. It simply means that I think the notion on this forum that ILEs are primarily bubbly, spontaneous and hyperactive might be a misconception.

LII: This link provides a lot of Russian LII descriptions: Translated version of http://www.socionics.org/ (See "Descriptions" at the top of the page.)

If you notice, the Russian descriptions make more mention of LIIs being proactive, structured, disciplined, cautious, and detailed, more so than the English descriptions, which essentially seem to describe LIIs as good critical thinkers. Therefore, it seems that the Russian descriptions have a different emphasis and are a better match with E6 and E1, as opposed to E9 or E5.

ILI: A lot of the English descriptions seem to describe ILIs as being very imaginative and lost in their own minds. While this is not inconsistent with the Russian descriptions, the Russian descriptions seem to provide a different perspective. (See the socionics.org link above.)

These are just a few of the type comparisons that I've made, so there might be more differences. I'm interested to see what the people on this forum have to make of this.

Jason

[aestrivex]

i basically object to your use of relating everything here to enneagram types. discrepancies between the russian/english descriptions are not a result of "the russian ILEs are 5ish while the english ILEs are 7ish." there are good reasons to view a few of the ILEs listed there (ie bohr, freud) as wrong, in my opinion, and there is good reason to think of the typing of einstein as 5w6 as silly, also in my opinion (i tend to view enneagram typings of famous people, from what i can generally see of them in the mainstream, as highly dubious).

overall, though, these discrepancies have nothing to do with differences that the way types are variously perceived in russian and english environments; socionneagram correlations are tentative propositions to begin with. i think in general that, for example, the perception of ILEs as "bubbly" is nonexistent; it wouldn't be wrong, per se, for some ILEs to come across that way, but that's hardly the defining aspect of ILEs.

[xerx]

I've been reading some Russian-translated type descriptions and so forth and I've noticed some differences between the Western notions of type and the Russian descriptions and typings.

ILE: I've noticed that the English ILE descriptions are similar to the Russian descriptions. However, this forum seems to think that ILEs are primarily E7s and are rarely E5s. Take a look at this type benchmark list obtained from Russian socionists: Translated version of http://www.famo.ru//etalon.php

Most every ILE on this list whose Enneagram type I know of is E5. There don't appear to be any E7s. Note that this does not mean, in my eyes, that ILEs are primarily E5s or that E7 ILEs are rare. It simply means that I think the notion on this forum that ILEs are primarily bubbly, spontaneous and hyperactive might be a misconception.

Yes, thank you. At the very least there are ILEs with more extreme introverted tendencies than others.

ILI: A lot of the English descriptions seem to describe ILIs as being very imaginative and lost in their own minds. While this is not inconsistent with the Russian descriptions, the Russian descriptions seem to provide a different perspective. (See the socionics.org link above.)

I've met some quite outgoing ILIs, who seem like they'd be as competitive in the business world as LIEs or SxEs. Even Ganin's description bluntly states that some would act very extroverted. I'm still willing to bet a year's worth of salt that most self-typed ILIs are in fact ILI.

[jason_m]

i basically object to your use of relating everything here to enneagram types. discrepancies between the russian/english descriptions are not a result of "the russian ILEs are 5ish while the english ILEs are 7ish."

In some cases, I'm not referring to the descriptions as much as the prevailing notions in this forum. While I'm probably not an ILE, I've noticed that myself and other people seem to be turned away from this typing, even though the descriptions might be somewhat applicable (I think of myself as LII, and ILE isn't that far off). The only reason that I can think of for this is that people around here seem to have a notion that ILEs display Sevenish behaviour. I think examples of this might be seen in how Gilly and Allie were typed by the forum as ILE, while more likely ILEs (e.g., Jonathan - although I do believe he is ILI) have been directed towards other typings.

there are good reasons to view a few of the ILEs listed there (ie bohr, freud) as wrong, in my opinion, and there is good reason to think of the typing of einstein as 5w6 as silly, also in my opinion (i tend to view enneagram typings of famous people, from what i can generally see of them in the mainstream, as highly dubious).

This is probably debatable. I'm also not so sure that the Russian community would compile a list of ILEs that is predominantly composed of Sevens, but that is debatable as well, since we don't know what such a list would look like. Finally, consider that that is a benchmark list taken from some of the most famous socionists in the world.

overall, though, these discrepancies have nothing to do with differences that the way types are variously perceived in russian and english environments; socionneagram correlations are tentative propositions to begin with. i think in general that, for example, the perception of ILEs as "bubbly" is nonexistent; it wouldn't be wrong, per se, for some ILEs to come across that way, but that's hardly the defining aspect of ILEs.

As I said, it seems to me that some of the less-seasoned socionists do view things that way, especially if you consider some of the people who have been typed as ILE. Once again, consider some had typed Darkstar this way. (I'm not trying to make fun of Darkstar. I just find it hard to believe that he's ILE.)

Jason

[jason_m]

Yes, thank you. At the very least there are ILEs with more extreme introverted tendencies than others.

Yes, I would expect a lot of MBTI-typed INTPs to be ILEs if you go by the descriptions - the two types aren't that far off. For example, consider how Einstein is the prototypical ILE in socionics and the prototypical INTP in the MBTI.

I've met some quite outgoing ILIs, who seem like they'd be as competitive in the business world as LIEs or SxEs. Even Ganin's description bluntly states that some would act very extroverted. I'm still willing to bet a year's worth of salt that most self-typed ILIs are in fact ILI.

It wouldn't surprise me either.

Jason

[Jarno]

I've met some quite outgoing ILIs, who seem like they'd be as competitive in the business world as LIEs or SxEs. Even Ganin's description bluntly states that some would act very extroverted. I'm still willing to bet a year's worth of salt that most self-typed ILIs are in fact ILI.

True

[aestrivex]

In some cases, I'm not referring to the descriptions as much as the prevailing notions in this forum. While I'm probably not an ILE, I've noticed that myself and other people seem to be turned away from this typing, even though the descriptions might be somewhat applicable (I think of myself as LII, and ILE isn't that far off).

The only reason that I can think of for this is that people around here seem to have a notion that ILEs display Sevenish behaviour. I think examples of this might be seen in how Gilly and Allie were typed by the forum as ILE, while more likely ILEs (e.g., Jonathan - although I do believe he is ILI) have been directed towards other typings.

i think this is silly. so many people are turned off towards silly typings that this is barely useful anyway. and fwiw i never really saw allie as ILE.

This is probably debatable. I'm also not so sure that the Russian community would compile a list of ILEs that is predominantly composed of Sevens, but that is debatable as well, since we don't know what such a list would look like. Finally, consider that that is a benchmark list taken from some of the most famous socionists in the world.

i don't basically care; the russians were very skimpy in their understanding of certain individuals. freud is basically debatable, although i wouldn't see ILE as being a centrally likely type among things to be debated; i don't see how anybody would see niels bohr as ILE

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[ArchonAlarion]

I think at one point either the enneagram or socionics will have to be scrapped or combined.

I don't know which will become dominant either way, but one thing i do like from enneagram is that it explains why we have types (early childhood trauma) which i think most psychologists have empirically proven and the instinctual types have freudian connections...

What I'm saying is that while enneagram might be less "refined" as socionics can be, it at least explains itself which is a 1up over socionics imo

[jason_m]

Okay, I think I have an idea as to what's going on here. It deals with the notion of subtype. As most everyone here knows, the ILE can be divided into logical and intuitive subtypes. What a lot of people don't know is that Gulenko's notions of subtype are different from Meged and Ovcharov's. For example, in the case of ILE, Meged and Ovcharov consider the intuitive subtype to be like an IEE and the logical subtype to be like an SLE. Gulenko, on the other hand, agrees with the intuitive subtype but considers the logical subtype to be like an LII.

The point is that the logical subtype of ILE under Gulenkos conception is a lot like an LII, and therefore, somewhat similar to both E5 and the MBTI notion of INTP, while the intuitive subtype is more similar to E7ish traits and IEEs. It seems to me that many on this forum seem to overlook the logical subtype of ILE, and assume that all ILEs are similar to the intuitive subtype. For example, when I first came here, no one considered me to be an ILE after I posted a video of myself. While I do consider myself to be an LII, I think that this is somewhat strange, given that I identify with a lot of ILE descriptions. The only reason I can think of for this, based on the people who have been typed as ILE, is that people here seem to associate the ILE with more E7ish or intuitive subtype qualities. Therefore, I would say that there are at least two subtypes of ILE: one that is closer to E5 and another that is closer to E7, and socionists should be aware of both of them.

(It's interesting to note as well that subtype seems to play a role in my interactions with people on this forum. For example, I identify with LII-Ne and ILE-Ti subtypes, I don't identify with ILE-Ne subtypes, and I sometimes try to avoid some LII-Ti subtypes, because some, although clear LIIs, seem closer to LSI than myself.)

Jason

[aestrivex]

Okay, I think I have an idea as to what's going on here. It deals with the notion of subtype. As most everyone here knows, the ILE can be divided into logical and intuitive subtypes. What a lot of people don't know is that Gulenko's notions of subtype are different from Meged and Ovcharov's. For example, in the case of ILE, Meged and Ovcharov consider the intuitive subtype to be like an IEE and the logical subtype to be like an SLE. Gulenko, on the other hand, agrees with the intuitive subtype but considers the logical subtype to be like an LII.

The point is that the logical subtype of ILE under Gulenkos conception is a lot like an LII, and therefore, somewhat similar to both E5 and the MBTI notion of INTP, while the intuitive subtype is more similar to E7ish traits and IEEs. It seems to me that many on this forum seem to overlook the logical subtype of ILE, and assume that all ILEs are similar to the intuitive subtype. For example, when I first came here, no one considered me to be an ILE after I posted a video of myself. While I do consider myself to be an LII, I think that this is somewhat strange, given that I identify with a lot of ILE descriptions. The only reason I can think of for this, based on the people who have been typed as ILE, is that people here seem to associate the ILE with more E7ish or intuitive subtype qualities. Therefore, I would say that there are at least two subtypes of ILE: one that is closer to E5 and another that is closer to E7, and socionists should be aware of both of them.

(It's interesting to note as well that subtype seems to play a role in my interactions with people on this forum. For example, I identify with LII-Ne and ILE-Ti subtypes, I don't identify with ILE-Ne subtypes, and I sometimes try to avoid some LII-Ti subtypes, because some, although clear LIIs, seem closer to LSI than myself.)

Jason

this is nonsense. gulenko doesn't even have a simple conception of accepting and producing subtypes that would lend itself to this type of generalization.

[jason_m]

jason_m: The Enneagram is an obsolete system which uses stereotypes, I don't understand why you complicate things so much. We need to focus on the essence of psyche, detached from empirical observations and social roles.

In my opinion, my use of the enneagram is not as relevant as people are making it out to be. I'm just using it as an easy way to explain a misconception that people of this forum might have. What I'm trying to say is that it might be the case that some people here have a misconception of certain socionics types and their behaviours, and, to me, learning the truth about these matters is important; otherwise, people here will have a false notion of type.

Jason

[jason_m]

this is nonsense. gulenko doesn't even have a simple conception of accepting and producing subtypes that would lend itself to this type of generalization.

I had assumed, based on this article: Subtype - Wikisocion and the subtype descriptions themselves that my account of Gulenko's notion of subtype was correct. However, even if my account of Gulenko's notions of subtype is incorrect, the fact is, if you read Gulenko's ILE-Ti description and his ILE-Ne description, it is clear that the logical subtype description fits much better with E5 and the LII-Ne description, and the intuitive subtype fits better with E7 and the IEE-Ne description. (And if you don't agree with this, then we are probably going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't see how we can reconcile our differences if we have intuited different things from the descriptions.)

Jason

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[aestrivex]

I had assumed, based on this article: Subtype - Wikisocion and the subtype descriptions themselves that my account of Gulenko's notion of subtype was correct. However, even if my account of Gulenko's notions of subtype is incorrect, the fact is, if you read Gulenko's ILE-Ti description and his ILE-Ne description, it is clear that the logical subtype description fits much better with E5 and the LII-Ne description, and the intuitive subtype fits better with E7 and the IEE-Ne description. (And if you don't agree with this, then we are probably going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't see how we can reconcile our differences if we have intuited different things from the descriptions.)

Jason

basically i dont agree that any of the gulenko subtype descriptions have any meaning at all.

[Smilingeyes]

I had assumed, based on this article: Subtype - Wikisocion and the subtype descriptions themselves that my account of Gulenko's notion of subtype was correct. However, even if my account of Gulenko's notions of subtype is incorrect, the fact is, if you read Gulenko's ILE-Ti description and his ILE-Ne description, it is clear that the logical subtype description fits much better with E5 and the LII-Ne description, and the intuitive subtype fits better with E7 and the IEE-Ne description. (And if you don't agree with this, then we are probably going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't see how we can reconcile our differences if we have intuited different things from the descriptions.)

Jason

For Gulenko temperament is basically a subtype whereas for the Meged point of view temperament is basically a supertype. Hence, other differences.

[Brilliand]

I don't know which will become dominant either way, but one thing i do like from enneagram is that it explains why we have types (early childhood trauma) which i think most psychologists have empirically proven and the instinctual types have freudian connections...

Wait, early childhood trauma for everyone? Surely not! And you can't really prove that unless you're prepared to traumatize early children.

[Creepy-male]

Wait, early childhood trauma for everyone? Surely not! And you can't really prove that unless you're prepared to traumatize early children.

Actually, "no trauma" = Nine.

Nine is the default type, I guess. Then you get a type by being traumatized!

<3 Seven.