MBTI - Socionics INTx

[buckland]

I did not want to trawl through previous messages to see whether this has previously been discussed, but I found this rather detailed MBTI site ages back which I have started looking through again. I know the INTx interchange between MBTI and socionics with swapping the j for P and vice versa is technically wrong, these descriptions seem to follow that pattern. I have not gone through the other types though.

The Sixteen Personality Types - High-Level

[Gilly]

There is no one-to-one correlation, nor automatic switch. Such a thing does not exist. The theories are entirely independent of one another and no direct correlations exist between the two. Two theories with different definitions for the same terms; they use the same words to talk about entirely different things.

Example: I am an ENTP in MBTI and an EIE/ENFj in Socionics.

Any attempt to find similarities or correlations between the two theories will be promptly met by citation of reliable Socionics sources on information metabolism that clearly distinguish Socionics definitions from MBTI or Jung.

The descriptions do sound similar, yes, and in many cases they describe the same kinds of people. But the theories are separate, and while perhaps tendencies of correlation could be established, 1-to-1 correlations do not exist.

[Jarno]

There is no one-to-one correlation, nor automatic switch. Such a thing does not exist. The theories are entirely independent of one another and no direct correlations exist between the two. Two theories with different definitions for the same terms; they use the same words to talk about entirely different things.

Example: I am an ENTP in MBTI and an EIE/ENFj in Socionics.

Any attempt to find similarities or correlations between the two theories will be promptly met by citation of reliable Socionics sources on information metabolism that clearly distinguish Socionics definitions from MBTI or Jung.

The descriptions do sound similar, yes, and in many cases they describe the same kinds of people. But the theories are separate, and while perhaps tendencies of correlation could be established, 1-to-1 correlations do not exist.

there are obviously many similarities, and the intent of all theories is to describe the same phenomena, the 16 different psychological types. Even among socionics descriptions there are differences. Yes MBTI might be amateuristic, but it's not an 'entirely different' model.

[krieger]

The content of that site is pure fiction.

[Ezra]

That site you mentioned, buckland, is an MBTI site. If you want to talk about socionics, throw that out the window. It will only serve to confuse you.

To further illustrate Gilly's point about no correlation:

We proposed the 16 descriptions of the Keirsey types to 108 socionists (this means, each of the 108 read ALL THE 16 descriptions), and we asked them to identify the socionic types in these descriptions.

The table below represents the result of this experiment:



And the next table represents one more result of this experiment. We asked the participants to indicate their own types, and to recognize their own types in these descriptions:

Source

[Jarno]

first of all, that experiment was about keirsey's types, who uses some kind of economic perspective. Pretty akward for Socionists.

If I would describe 16 types of different cars. And somebody else would describe the same 16 different cars. A third person wouldn't be able to match our descriptions either!!

So try to see things in the right perspective.

[Ezra]

first of all, that experiment was about keirsey's types, who uses some kind of economic perspective.

...

Do you know who Keirsey is?

[Jarno]

...

Do you know who Keirsey is?

yes, i've got his book. temp.sorter 2. The thing I could remember about his way of describing is that he focusses a lot of the roles of people.

But do you agree with my other statement about matching descriptions?

[buckland]

I know there is no correlation between the 2 systems. i was taking specifically about the INTx descriptions posted on that website. They do seem to fit the j-P/p-J switch, not entirely, but enough to possibly suggest a link.

[Jarno]

I know there is no correlation between the 2 systems.

you've just shown your lack of interpretation skills and unability to critically evaluate a method of correlating.

[aestrivex]

I know there is no correlation between the 2 systems. i was taking specifically about the INTx descriptions posted on that website. They do seem to fit the j-P/p-J switch, not entirely, but enough to possibly suggest a link.

...except those descriptions are designed as minimalistic functional descriptions

[buckland]

you've just shown your lack of interpretation skills and unability to critically evaluate a method of correlating.

I haven't read all the descriptions. Those 2 could just be coincidences. All I was saying which no one seems to understand is that those 2 descriptions seem like they allow the jP switch. From that, how could I possibly be confident enough to extrapolate to the other types and therefore the 2 systems?

[buckland]

...except those descriptions are designed as minimalistic functional descriptions

Possibly. There is a superficiality to them which I definitely agree on, but they have key statements in them that seem rather socionics related. I need to go over them again though.

[Brilliand]

I'll take an extension of Jarno's answer: They're descriptions. They're messed up. When your compare descriptions, you get something twice as messed up.

[buckland]

I'll take an extension of Jarno's answer: They're descriptions. They're messed up. When your compare descriptions, you get something twice as messed up.

Actually, Jarno thinks the opposite of that or at least that there is some similarity between the 2 which sounds technically right but it's been a while since I looked at MBTI so I can't be conclusive.

[Jarno]

Actually, Jarno thinks the opposite of that or at least that there is some similarity between the 2 which sounds technically right but it's been a while since I looked at MBTI so I can't be conclusive.

No I agree with Brilliand, both descriptions are made by humans, so they are not perfect.

[buckland]

No I agree with Brilliand, both descriptions are made by humans, so they are not perfect.

In my face!

I have absolutely no idea where you stand now. Using this arguement effectively means you can not believe any typing system anywhere. Should you not be starting on the assumption that there is some element of truth. Perfection in typology is practically impossible, all of them are approximations. In any case, was your point not that MBTI and socionics have some level of overlap?

[Jarno]

In my face!

I have absolutely no idea where you stand now. Using this arguement effectively means you can not believe any typing system anywhere. Should you not be starting on the assumption that there is some element of truth. Perfection in typology is practically impossible, all of them are approximations. In any case, was your point not that MBTI and socionics have some level of overlap?

Oke I will repeat myself again. If I make a description of 16 different cars, and you would make a description of the same 16 cars, our descriptions wouldn't be easy to match. This however doesn't mean that we describe different cars, we just use another viewpoint. I don't understand what's so difficult about this. It's common sense.

[buckland]

Oke I will repeat myself again. If I make a description of 16 different cars, and you would make a description of the same 16 cars, our descriptions wouldn't be easy to match. This however doesn't mean that we describe different cars, we just use another viewpoint. I don't understand what's so difficult about this. It's common sense.

How is that any different from me saying there is "no correlation between the 2 systems"? What I term as systems you term as descriptions. Maybe saying "no correlation" was too rigid (if that is the problem, then I'm sorry), but we seem to be saying variants of the same thing. However, I disagree with your assertion with the cars that we would be describing the same thing. Addition of even a single extra car that is similar to one already in the crowd allows variations in grouping (which is what happens in the case of MBTI and socionics). In the descriptions I put up though, there were certain aspects of the descriptions that were similar in both, and all I was asking was if anyone else noted that.

[Brilliand]

What I term as systems you term as descriptions.

You started this thread talking about descriptions. Our "descriptions" are an analogy to that. I think we do need to separate the system from its descriptions... the descriptions are to get the major points of the system across without getting into the inner workings.

[Ezra]

But do you agree with my other statement about matching descriptions?

Yes, except when you say "try to see things in the right perspective". Who dictates what is "right"?

[Jarno]

Yes, except when you say "try to see things in the right perspective". Who dictates what is "right"?

ah yes, when I say that, I usually mean: the scientific perspective.

[buckland]

have you analyzed the IST descriptions? i don't think the j/p switch works as well there. most MBTI sites have an incomplete model of the functions and even less developed intertype relationships. it's not 1-to-1 with Socionics as Ezra's charts show (though they still show some correlation.)

primarily, i think MBTI lacks Quadra values most. note that both axes of Quadra values would address the j/p dilema head-on. though also note that Socionics Intertype relations imply Quadra values can be difficult to discern at far psychological distance (hence the mutual fascination with Superego/Conflictor, etc.) Jung and MBTI may have been said to have started scratching the surface.

although there are perhaps shades of Quadra still in the earlier models. most MBTI ENTJ descriptions for example are clearly Socionics Ni/Se-valuing (whether it values Socionics Te/Fi is less clear though.) but other parts of MBTI are often hit-or-miss, depending upon the source and the part of source. the MBTI sites aren't even very standardized, and so much of their variance perhaps coincidental and uninteresting.

as an aside, myself i remember actually having come across Socionics through Quadra descriptions as i tried to categorize the NT types w.r.t what i would discover was already called Resolute Quadra values (or Socionics Se/Ni-valuing.) i do think there is some merit to saying the two typologies describe the same phenomenon. i don't like Jarno's analogy though, because there's nothing special about having 16 cars. perhaps it's more like the Periods in the Periodic Table, if different chemists arranged substances without knowing their Atomic Numbers.

I have just been reading the ISTJ description for example, and there does not seem to be a trace of in that description, though I do see towards the end of the description. It does give them though (at least an aspect of it) and weak . It as a whole just seems like a conglomerate of types all shoved into one, maybe as the closest fit? They focus more on duty fulfilment than anything else which is not necessarily that easy to fit with types as a whole, other than showing that this will probably fit judging temperaments.

The ISTP description is the opposite in some respects, with the attraction to adventure which again can not really be attached to specific types. The closest fit here may well be perceiving. They do give the type valuing though.

As a whole, these 2 types just don't really work with socionics typing. What do you think?

[Jarno]

Many problems arise when one does not take of their 'socionics glasses'. In Socionics there is much emphasize on the core psyche blocks of the type and less on the typical behaviour traits, intrests etc.


ISTJ
Serious and quiet, interested in security and peaceful living. Extremely thorough, responsible, and dependable. Well-developed powers of concentration. Usually interested in supporting and promoting traditions and establishments. Well-organized and hard working, they work steadily towards identified goals. They can usually accomplish any task once they have set their mind to it.

There is nothing in the above text that contradicts LSI. The above text is also most likely the LSI when choosing out of all socionics types. It's not perfect, but then again it's a description written about an LSI by someone who knows nothing about Socionics, with that in mind, he did a good job

ISTP
Quiet and reserved, interested in how and why things work. Excellent skills with mechanical things. Risk-takers who they live for the moment. Usually interested in and talented at extreme sports. Uncomplicated in their desires. Loyal to their peers and to their internal value systems, but not overly concerned with respecting laws and rules if they get in the way of getting something done. Detached and analytical, they excel at finding solutions to practical problems.

This one is a little exagarated, nonetheless most applies to SLI, and SLI is most likely of the 16 socio types. Although the writer doesn't know that "the SLI is a master of tools", he seems to have noticed it himself. Again a sign that he's following the same path as socionics, without knowing it. This isn't coincidence. A fairly good description for a non-socionist

[buckland]

Many problems arise when one does not take of their 'socionics glasses'. In Socionics there is much emphasize on the core psyche blocks of the type and less on the typical behaviour traits, intrests etc.


ISTJ
Serious and quiet, interested in security and peaceful living. Extremely thorough, responsible, and dependable. Well-developed powers of concentration. Usually interested in supporting and promoting traditions and establishments. Well-organized and hard working, they work steadily towards identified goals. They can usually accomplish any task once they have set their mind to it.

There is nothing in the above text that contradicts LSI. The above text is also most likely the LSI when choosing out of all socionics types. It's not perfect, but then again it's a description written about an LSI by someone who knows nothing about Socionics, with that in mind, he did a good job

ISTP
Quiet and reserved, interested in how and why things work. Excellent skills with mechanical things. Risk-takers who they live for the moment. Usually interested in and talented at extreme sports. Uncomplicated in their desires. Loyal to their peers and to their internal value systems, but not overly concerned with respecting laws and rules if they get in the way of getting something done. Detached and analytical, they excel at finding solutions to practical problems.

This one is a little exagarated, nonetheless most applies to SLI, and SLI is most likely of the 16 socio types. Although the writer doesn't know that "the SLI is a master of tools", he seems to have noticed it himself. Again a sign that he's following the same path as socionics, without knowing it. This isn't coincidence. A fairly good description for a non-socionist

I agree with you here, but once you open up the descriptions they diverge a lot more from the socionics descriptions.

[Ezra]

ah yes, when I say that, I usually mean: the scientific perspective.

Fair enough, but you are aware that socionics is not a scientific theory, whichever way you look at it. If you view it through the eyes of the majority of scientists, it has not yet been empirically verified. If you view it through a Popperian scientist's eyes, socionics is not empirically falsifiable, which means the theory will never gain a place in science.

[Jarno]

Fair enough, but you are aware that socionics is not a scientific theory, whichever way you look at it. If you view it through the eyes of the majority of scientists, it has not yet been empirically verified. If you view it through a Popperian scientist's eyes, socionics is not empirically falsifiable, which means the theory will never gain a place in science.

Although it's nice to throw in some philosophical terms, Socionics has been establised by scientific methods, which is my point. No psychological or sociological subject can be labeled as "science" by your preferred Popperian definition. The danger however of using such 'hard' criteria, is that you'll end up in a sort of Hitta discussion: nothing can be trusted, so knowledge is impossible, everything could be hoax, the end. And it's especially that direction which I try to avoid.

Let's put it this way, when compared to many foundings in psychology and sociology, then Socionics defend its legitimacy very well.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request