PDA

View Full Version : Any MBTI ENTJs here?



Eidos
05-06-2006, 02:13 PM
Nevermind.

Phaedrus
05-06-2006, 02:30 PM
I'm looking forward to see what you socionic ENTjs will reply to this, so I will not say much at this point. But I would very much welcome if you also could try to answer at least one of these two questions:

1. What are the reasons/arguments for your claims about your MBTI type?

2. If you think that your MBTI type differ from your socionic type, what are the reasons why you believe that that is even possible?

Expat
05-06-2006, 02:37 PM
2. If you think that your MBTI type differ from your socionic type, what are the reasons why you believe that that is even possible?

Because MBTI and Socionics have different criteria.

Duh.

Joy
05-06-2006, 02:57 PM
lol MBTI

Phaedrus
05-06-2006, 03:21 PM
Because MBTI and Socionics have different criteria.
Then perhaps you could explain how they differ and why that is relevant. Do you actually believe that they are so much different that they lead to different typing results? Do you really believe that you are an MBTI INTJ and a socionic ENTj? If that is the case, explain how you came to that conclusion.

Expat
05-06-2006, 03:34 PM
@Phaedrus

I decline to take the time to explain it to you. This is a matter that has been endlessly discussed here, and you would have easily found plenty of material on that on this very forum, if you had just taken the minimum amount of trouble to look for it.


If you are interested, please take a look at these threads.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2416

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2572

Eidos
05-06-2006, 04:10 PM
How could an MBTI INTJ recognize himself in these adjectives from the Socionics ENTj description:


unbridled optimism; like movement; energetic; opportunistic; like to test limits; direct

How are these compatible with the MBTI definition of introversion? They are descriptors of an MBTI Extravert.

FDG
05-06-2006, 05:30 PM
FDG: MBTI xxTP? You seem very laid-back. You don't talk much at all on forums. You seem E-type 9w8. I could see ISTP 9w8 being a good fit. What do you think?


MBTI ENTP.

There is no way I am an introvert; other than that, I am open to suggestions. I might be ESTP. Also, I can't be anything else than a 3-7-8 on the enneagram, believe me. Remember that sometimes I do not talk much because english is not my first language.


EDIT: unbridled optimism; like movement; energetic; opportunistic; like to test limits; direct


Those qualities describe me perfectly. I'm always running everywhere, I am the most optimistic person I know, and the most energetic/loud etc.

I don't know about the like to test limits.

I am very direct unless I have an emotional connection with the person I'm speaking with.

EDIT 2: I DO NOT TALK MUCH? LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF POSTS I HAVE DONE ON THIS FORUM AND LOOK AT YOURS:p:p:p:p :D

Eidos
05-06-2006, 05:44 PM
MBTI ENTP.

There is no way I am an introvert; other than that, I am open to suggestions. Also, I can't be anything else than a 3-7-8 on the enneagram, believe me. Remember that sometimes I do not talk much because english is not my first language.

Well, you've got a pretty good command of it!

Anyway, you used to say you were 50/50 E/I by MBTI standards. You say you are very action oriented and like sports, so I thought ISTP was a possibility. Have you considered a borderline MBTI type, like XNTP? I thought of 9w8 because you seem much calmer, laid back and peaceful than 3, 7 and 8's.


EDIT 2: I DO NOT TALK MUCH? LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF POSTS I HAVE DONE ON THIS FORUM AND LOOK AT YOURS:p:p:p:p :D

Well I'm mostly busy doing many things away from my computer and talking to people IRL! :lol:

FDG
05-06-2006, 05:52 PM
Anyway, you used to say you were 50/50 E/I by MBTI standards.

Mmh, only when I was a pretty depressing moment. Not that I was depressed, just...nothing to do.


You say you are very action oriented and like sports, so I thought ISTP was a possibility. Have you considered a borderline MBTI type, like XNTP? I thought of 9w8 because you seem much calmer, laid back and peaceful than 3, 7 and 8's.

Well, I am calm - in the sense of emotionally stable - and laid back, but not peaceful. In fact, I argue endlessly IRL and I always want to move on to the next thing. Unable to enjoy the moment. ISTP is not to be excluded, but duh, I don't relate to any of the ISTPs I know, I do not score ISTP, I do not relate to the description...pretty much everything points against it.




Well I'm mostly busy doing many things away from my computer and talking to people IRL! :lol:

Gah, I'd really like to. I love when I don't have time to do anything and life just moves fast without giving time to breath. Unfortunately, it's hasn't been like that in the last two years of my life, for various reasons - mainly , the lack of interesting people with whom I can do things. Remember that I also work from the computer eheh.

Eidos
05-06-2006, 05:54 PM
OK, fair enough!

FDG
05-06-2006, 05:58 PM
OK, fair enough!

I actually have a perception of being calmer than I relly am. Everyone says that I have a temper, however I feel like I am really internally stable. So, I don't know about that point. Everything I can say is that I perceive myself as having a really low level of neuroticism, but some slight symptoms of type-A behaviour.

Kristiina
05-06-2006, 06:24 PM
I doubt that the ENTJ= ENTp would apply, because I can't imagine that much J behaviour in ENTps. They do use Ti, which can sometimes seem judging (when they are systematizing stuff), but that's just about it.

Just logically thinking I guess you should also ask ENFjs if they are ENTJ. :) They might have a strong role. And ENTjs should be a logical guess too, but there aren't any ENTJs among us.


PS! :) Yeah, ISTJ (If not ESTJ by now). And probably Enneagram 6. I did the shortest test, so it's not 100% sure, but FDG thought I was 6 even before I did the test.

FDG
05-06-2006, 06:30 PM
PS! :) Yeah, ISTJ (If not ESTJ by now). And probably Enneagram 6. I did the shortest test, so it's not 100% sure, but FDG thought I was 6 even before I did the test.

:lol:

I thought you were a 6 after 5 mins of speaking with you! In fact, you wrote here a description of your world-view which was like the official description of the world-wiev of 6s.

But yeah, of course if I said something about your type you wouldn't take it into consideration cuz I treated you well ;)

Kristiina
05-06-2006, 06:35 PM
PS! :) Yeah, ISTJ (If not ESTJ by now). And probably Enneagram 6. I did the shortest test, so it's not 100% sure, but FDG thought I was 6 even before I did the test.

:lol:

I thought you were a 6 after 5 mins of speaking with you! In fact, you wrote here a description of your world-view which was like the official description of the world-wiev of 6s.

But yeah, of course if I said something about your type you wouldn't take it into consideration cuz I treated you well ;)
:) I trust empirical evidence over the opinion of one person, no matter how much I like that person. ;)

FDG
05-06-2006, 06:37 PM
PS! :) Yeah, ISTJ (If not ESTJ by now). And probably Enneagram 6. I did the shortest test, so it's not 100% sure, but FDG thought I was 6 even before I did the test.

:lol:

I thought you were a 6 after 5 mins of speaking with you! In fact, you wrote here a description of your world-view which was like the official description of the world-wiev of 6s.

But yeah, of course if I said something about your type you wouldn't take it into consideration cuz I treated you well ;)
:) I trust empirical evidence over the opinion of one person, no matter how much I like that person. ;)

So Eidos' opinion is empirical evidence, whereas mine is just an opinion? :P :D (I'm jokin)

Kristiina
05-06-2006, 06:43 PM
PS! :) Yeah, ISTJ (If not ESTJ by now). And probably Enneagram 6. I did the shortest test, so it's not 100% sure, but FDG thought I was 6 even before I did the test.

:lol:

I thought you were a 6 after 5 mins of speaking with you! In fact, you wrote here a description of your world-view which was like the official description of the world-wiev of 6s.

But yeah, of course if I said something about your type you wouldn't take it into consideration cuz I treated you well ;)
:) I trust empirical evidence over the opinion of one person, no matter how much I like that person. ;)

So Eidos' opinion is empirical evidence, whereas mine is just an opinion? :P :D (I'm jokin)
HAhahaha... :lol:
I didn't remember that Eidos said anything about my enneagram type. :) but the short test was the empirical evidence.

Eidos
05-06-2006, 07:40 PM
No I told FDG after about 5 minutes later from that thread you started :P

Phaedrus
05-06-2006, 07:51 PM
@Expat

I have read the threads you refer to. So far I haven't seen one single really good argument for your claim. It is easy to get the impression that no one has actually bothered to make a thorough comparison between the two models and their type descriptions. Dmitri Lytov might be an exception, and his view on the matter might not be too far from my own, but I disagree with him that the correlations between ESP and NTJ types are that bad. Rocky also has some insightful comments, but it is still not clear whether or not he and Lytov make the same mistake as so many others seem to make when they confuse the model with reality.

Socionics and MBTI differ in their definitions of the functions and in their function analysis, but their definitions of the four scales have very much in common. And neither MBTI nor Socionics claim that your type is identical to some test result you might get, so what we should do is to compare their type descriptions. If we do that, and ignore those parts of the descriptions that talk about the functions, we will see that they are not that different. If anyone believes that he or she is a different type in the two models, that has probably much more to do with his or her insufficient self insight, insufficient study and/or his or her insufficient understanding of the type descriptions in the two models. Of course it is also possible (and not unlikely) that the type descriptions themselves are misleading in some respects, but that doesn't mean that they are not trying to describe the same groups of people, i.e. the same empirical types.

Rocky
05-06-2006, 08:48 PM
So far I haven't seen one single really good argument for your claim. It is easy to get the impression that no one has actually bothered to make a thorough comparison between the two models and their type descriptions.

The answer to that is simple; there are far too many branches/intereptations of both American and Russian typology. Not only are there several different authors who have different views of the types in MBTI, there are also a few derivatives of MBTI, and conflicting views of socionics on top of that. If you were to say, compare one specific "version" of MBTI directly to a seperate "version" of socionics, then it would be easier. But it's pretty impossible to throw all of MBTI together and try to compare it to socionics. That's why the best thing to do is just give general reasons why different models/perceptions can be different while at the same time describing the same being.

It would take too much effort to pick apart every MBTI description (unless you have something in mind?).

Phaedrus
05-06-2006, 10:14 PM
If you were to say, compare one specific "version" of MBTI directly to a seperate "version" of socionics, then it would be easier.
Yes. And then you might get the result that they don't correlate that much.


But it's pretty impossible to throw all of MBTI together and try to compare it to socionics.
No. That's exactly what I have been trying to do. When you look at a lot of descriptions you will realize (eventually) that it is very unlikely that they are trying to describe different types. From a general perspective I think it is correct to say that they are describing the same groups of people.


That's why the best thing to do is just give general reasons why different models/perceptions can be different while at the same time describing the same being.
I'm not sure what you mean here. My main point is that they are describing the same being, and I agree that the models are different. So, do we actually agree on this, or don't we?

Rocky
05-06-2006, 10:53 PM
My main point is that they are describing the same being, and I agree that the models are different. So, do we actually agree on this, or don't we?

Sure.

Phaedrus
05-07-2006, 12:50 AM
Anyway, Socionics ENTj fits me way too fucking well to ponder any other possibilities in regards to this system.
I am curious, Dynamicism. Do you really think that you fit the MBTI ENTP type descriptions better than the MBTI ENTJ type descriptions?

Expat
05-09-2006, 11:14 AM
Expat: MBTI INTJ? You are much more restrained, reserved and level-headed than myself. You are also more theoretical and distrust tests more. You seem to really enjoy the socionics theory, something for which I have limited patience and interest. E-type 1w9?


We've already discussed some of these issues.

Regarding "theoretical and distrusting tests", you've got it 100% backwards. You mistake precision for accuracy.

My interest in socionics is due to its possible practical applications only. I can see it working in front of my eyes, albeit not perfectly. Please note that Smilingeyes' behavior tracker isn't founded in tests either, yet he is convinced of its practical uses. Doesn't that make him "theoretical" too?

I do not "distrust" tests. I "trust" them to determine, according to their own self-contained and self-validating criteria, that someone is (for instance) 86.476% easygoing and 56.564% neurotical. However, as you have stated yourself, once you reached these data there is no practical use for them.

So it seems to me that those tests are very precise, but not necessarily accurate in determining anything with practical application. My conclusion from my own observations is that typing via socionics and relationships is more accurate, even though its precision - as is obvious to anyone here - is very low. But precision is no guarantee of accuracy. The relative accuracy of socionics is demonstrated by how it often works in practice, beyond the limits of what I'd call self-delusion or coincidence.

If tomorrow it can be shown that typing by tests can be as useful in practical applications as it is precise, I'll shift my focus towards it immediately.

I'm an engineer. My whole focus is on practical applications of theory. I need both accuracy and precision in my work, but I see no point in having high precision in values that have no practical utility. On the other hand, even in exact-science engineering we have rules of thumb that work quite well in practice most of the time, even if they may be not very precise. That is why I prefer socionics to tests.

On the enneagram, as defined by the Enneagram Institute, I do not identify with any single type. My tests results are all over the board. If anything, nowadays I identify with Health Level 4 of Type 8, but I don't see myself much in the other levels *shrugs*.


How could an MBTI INTJ recognize himself in these adjectives from the Socionics ENTj description:


unbridled optimism; like movement; energetic; opportunistic; like to test limits; direct

How are these compatible with the MBTI definition of introversion? They are descriptors of an MBTI Extravert.

As I pointed out in that thread MBTI =/= Socionics, I tested as INTJ in one MBTI test (perhaps not the best one) and I identified with some INTJ profiles, in particular the one at www.typelogic.com.

It seemed to me that MBTI largely defines extroversion by "socially outgoing in a superficial way". So in at least that kind of test I took, I tended to come out more as introvert, which also fitted my self-perception of disliking small talk and casual relationships. I do identify with the definition of extraversion as you just quoted. So perhaps I just didn't do MBTI properly then *shrugs*.

Regarding being "more restrained, reserved and level-headed" than yourself, this is the kind of stuff that is difficult to quantify online and is also determined by things like age, life experience, etc.

Expat
05-09-2006, 11:30 AM
And neither MBTI nor Socionics claim that your type is identical to some test result you might get, so what we should do is to compare their type descriptions. If we do that, and ignore those parts of the descriptions that talk about the functions, we will see that they are not that different. If anyone believes that he or she is a different type in the two models, that has probably much more to do with his or her insufficient self insight, insufficient study and/or his or her insufficient understanding of the type descriptions in the two models. Of course it is also possible (and not unlikely) that the type descriptions themselves are misleading in some respects, but that doesn't mean that they are not trying to describe the same groups of people, i.e. the same empirical types.

I was under the impression that MBTI indeed also defined types according to how you come our in the E/I, N/S, T/F, J/P dichotomies, and that the profiles acted just as a guide to describe how the persons who got a set of tests results might behave. Under this definition, I think that people may indeed have different MBTI types from socionics.

Now, if you totally ignore test results, and even the isolated dichotomies, and just look at good profiles, I will agree that they broadly try to describe the same kind of people, which is precisely why socionists identified their own types aith MBTI types, with Legionnaire = ESTp etc.

Expat
05-09-2006, 11:40 AM
Yeah, I'm MBTI ENTP - Socionics ENTp I am definitely not. Though interestingly I've always been very borderline on the P/J scale on every MBTI test I've taken. But yeah, I'm more scattered, random, and have a lack of conscientiousness so by MBTI criteria I would be more of a P. Yes, I'm 7w8. Anyway, Socionics ENTj fits me way too fucking well to ponder any other possibilities in regards to this system.

I think the J/P MBTI scale is probably one of the largest sources of discrepancy. I agree that people who are extreme P will be socionics irrationals and those who are extreme J will be socionics rationals, but MBTI also defines J according to things like whether you keep your desk or your hair tidy, and gives equal importance to planning your life in the longer term as to scheduling every hour of your day. I think a lot of ENTjs will come out as slightly P.

Phaedrus
05-09-2006, 01:58 PM
I was under the impression that MBTI indeed also defined types according to how you come our in the E/I, N/S, T/F, J/P dichotomies, and that the profiles acted just as a guide to describe how the persons who got a set of tests results might behave. Under this definition, I think that people may indeed have different MBTI types from socionics.
The MBTI tests (and the Socionics and Enneagram tests too) are only tools that can be used to determine your type.


Now, if you totally ignore test results, and even the isolated dichotomies, and just look at good profiles, I will agree that they broadly try to describe the same kind of people, which is precisely why socionists identified their own types aith MBTI types, with Legionnaire = ESTp etc.
We don't have to ignore test results and we shouldn't. But the results of a few individuals have much less value than the combined results of a million individuals. We have access to an enormous amount of test results, and we begin to see a clear pattern when we do empirical research based on those test results. Only then we can begin to see the types more clearly and accurately.

The types are there in the first place. Then we invent the tests as methods to be used in determining the types. It is not the other way around.

That you can identify with the Enneagram type 8 (more so than the alternatives anyway) makes it more likely that you are in fact an ENTJ also in the MBTI model, but that piece of information has limited value in itself, of course.

pokeball
05-09-2006, 02:11 PM
And neither MBTI nor Socionics claim that your type is identical to some test result you might get, so what we should do is to compare their type descriptions. If we do that, and ignore those parts of the descriptions that talk about the functions, we will see that they are not that different. If anyone believes that he or she is a different type in the two models, that has probably much more to do with his or her insufficient self insight, insufficient study and/or his or her insufficient understanding of the type descriptions in the two models. Of course it is also possible (and not unlikely) that the type descriptions themselves are misleading in some respects, but that doesn't mean that they are not trying to describe the same groups of people, i.e. the same empirical types.

I was under the impression that MBTI indeed also defined types according to how you come our in the E/I, N/S, T/F, J/P dichotomies, and that the profiles acted just as a guide to describe how the persons who got a set of tests results might behave. Under this definition, I think that people may indeed have different MBTI types from socionics.

Now, if you totally ignore test results, and even the isolated dichotomies, and just look at good profiles, I will agree that they broadly try to describe the same kind of people, which is precisely why socionists identified their own types aith MBTI types, with Legionnaire = ESTp etc.


Sort of. They have function dichotomies but there seems to be a disagreement between the two theories on what those functions represent and how they are arranged together and in time.