Saw a thread on it but it was like 3 years old, so I wasn't sure if necro'ing it was ok. What's your SLOAN type?
Printable View
Saw a thread on it but it was like 3 years old, so I wasn't sure if necro'ing it was ok. What's your SLOAN type?
xc|u|ai, not exceptionally anything. (|u| = 16%)
This fits with being primarily a phleg-chol in five temperaments, I think.
EDIT
Rofl... I just realised... I made a very bad maths pun above.
They've always correlated this to MBTI, as well as Big 5, they're pretty much the same thing, I have yet to see them able to correlate this to Socionics.
RCUxI.
R something.
Correlation's probably weak, but I wanna see if some kind of relationship can be established at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by polikujm
SLUEI (primary inquisitive) here.
Yeah, well R/S is pretty good for I/E. The other correlations are too weak imo. I would list what I think they are, in terms of Socionics, but there's not really a point.
sCoEi
rluei
What are they anyway? Let's see if they match mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by polikujm
First time I hear of it. Thanks.
SCOEN.
Quote:
not easily hurt, motivated, likes compliments, not mystical, not prone to envy, not particularly intellectual, decisive, mature, not bitter, not very introspective, fits in most places, traditional, keeps emotions under control, not very artistic, self expressive, values society, averse to stealing, attracted to prestige, keep up an appearance, trusting, does not second guess self, realist, fearless, not a good loser, self confident, does not put the welfare of others ahead of self, competitive, doubt free, feels you have to be tough on people to get things done, not afraid to draw attention to self, demanding, not easily hurt, not known for generosity, speaks up regardless of consequences, able to stand up for self, accomplishes work on time, rarely compliments people, productive, hard working, impatient, good at sports, makes plans and sticks with them, prefer to lead, controlling, aggressive, not easily frustrated, not embarrassed by praise, does not require lots of time alone to recharge, opinionated, more dominant than submissive
RCUAI:
philosopher, philosophy professor, scientist, research scientist, novelist, author, astronomer, astronaut, freelance writer, archeologist, researcher, environmental scientist, scholar, physicist, anthropologist, forest ranger, museum curator, theologian, bookseller, biotechnology, guitarist, game designer, aerospace engineer, college professor, geologist, pilot, egyptologist, video game designer, audio engineer, poet, ecologist, biochemist, animator, genetics researcher, forensic anthropologist, wildlife biologist, computer programmer, paleontologist, chemist, freelance artist, assassin, comic book artist, cartoonist, engineer, art historian, strategist, psychoanalyst, artist, research psychologist, environmental engineer, historian, computer engineer, sailor, computer animator, political scientist, non profit sector, forensic scientist, history professor, software engineer, screenwriter microbiologist
Here's the Big 5 --> Socionics/MBTI correlation.Quote:
Originally Posted by polikujm
Extroversion = Extroversion
Openness = Intuitive
Agreeableness = Feeling
Conscientiousness = Judging
Neuroticism = Unhealthy (on the type-independent healthy/unhealthy spectrum)
Someone who scores high on Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness and Neuroticism is therefore tested as an unhealthy ENFj.
When I find how the SLOAN type works I'll list that too.
EDIT:
SLOAN - Big 5 - MBTI/Socionics
Social - Extroversion - Extroversion
Limbic - Neuroticism - Unhealthy
Orderliness - Conscientiousness - Judging
Accommodating - Agreeableness - Feeling
Non-curious - Un-Openness - Sensing
Someone who scores SLOAN on the SLOAN is therefore tested as an unhealthy ESFj.
SLOAN - Big 5 - MBTI/Socionics
Reserved - Introversion - Introversion
Calm - Un-Neuroticism - Healthy
Unstructured - Un-Conscientiousness - Perceiving
Egocentric - Un-Agreeableness - Thinking
Inquisitive - Openness - Intuitive
Someone who scores RCUEI on the SLOAN is therefore tested as a healthy INTp.
Correlated answers given so far to see results:
Note: Like any personality test, these will not be 100% accurate, duh.
16types big 5 results:
Aleksei: SLUEI - ENTp
Arthur: RCUAI - INFp
Poli: RCUXI - INXp
Azeroffs: SCOEI - ENTj
Ashton: SCUEI - ENTp
Aiss: RLUEI - INTp
Absurd: SCOEN - ESTj
Why would :Fe: ego types be Agreeable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crispy
All Feeling types, including Fe egos, are agreeable in relation to all Thinking types. That is what Feeling means in socionics.
Feeling in Socionics simply means a focus on emotion and subjective experience, as opposed to logic and objective truth. Nothing about agreeableness. My experience with Fe-ego types is that they are much more likely Egocentric than not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crispy
Maybe for betas, but if any s-type correlates to agreeableness, it's alpha SF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksei
Indeed, I should have clarified as much my bad. Nevertheless, Crispy's assertion is assfuck retarded and unsupported. Beta NFs are conceited little pricks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azeroffs
They are both the same when you get to the bare bones. Your experiences are based on mistypings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksei
I disagree about crispy's assertion. F definitely correlates to agreeableness when compared to T.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksei
Not 100% of course, but it's there. Even for beta NFs, but probably to a lesser degree. IME, all beta NFs have been quite agreeable. I think it might be all those self-absorbed e3 EIEs and e4w3 IEIs who are messing things up.
It does as a general rule, but not in the absolute. Agreeableness, to me, seem to correspond most closely to :Si: and :Fi: valuation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azeroffs
Let's compare how you interpret dichotomies to how I do:
Your interpretation of Agreeable/Unagreeable
Agreeable:ESFp ISFj ENFp INFj ESTj ISTp ESFj ISFp
Results: All of delta, and all SF's
Unagreeable: INTp ENTj ENTp INTj ENFj ESTp ISTj ENFj
Results: All of beta, and all NT's
My interpretation of Agreeable/Unagreeable
Agreeable: ESFj ISFp ENFj INFp ESFp ISFj ENFp INFj
Results: All F types
Unagreeable: ENTp INTj ESTp ISTj ENTj INTp ESTj ISTp
Results: All T types
Now that they are back to back; what makes more sense?
Is there a reason for you senselessly complicating what should be simple definitions of dichotomies?
If you want to be characterized as Unagreeable, you are NOT a feeling type. Learn the theory please.
I agree with Crispy's correlations.
I'm RCOAI.
Correlates to INFJ/INFj
The j comes from Organized > Unstructured.
Ya I'm near the border between the two as well. J/P is the most common inaccuracy on tests.
Idk about that though..Quote:
Originally Posted by Crispy
Pondering whether you might be Unagreeable would not dictate it so. But if you know exactly what they mean by Agreeableness and confidently choose to be known as Unagreeable, it reveals much about which side of the spectrum you're on.
It doesn't apply to those new to big 5, but Aleksei has been studying this for a long time (or so he says). He should know what the dichotomies mean by now.
RCUEI
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://similarminds.com/global5/rcuei.html
Similar story here.Quote:
Originally Posted by aixelsyd
Was: Shy/Anxious RLoAI
Am: Carefree sLuAI
Will Be: ?
(By Crispy's model, EII -> IEE?)
That correlation is as I've said. The greater truth is that the phenomenon(s) that the Big 5 describes are the same as the ones discovered for socionics (the four main dichotomies). They didn't give enough credit to their findings when the attached the word "medium" to the correlation. I assure you they were wrong. You will discover this too only after much study.Quote:
Originally Posted by ananke
Since the Big 5 is (if only somewhat) accepted in the scientific community, it is the closest bridge socionics can cross into the scientific realm.
No, I believe you scored ENTp on a big 5 test. If after extensive study of both socionics and big 5 you believe you still must be SXUEI without relying on a test, then it is most likely you are indeed either ENTp or severely misled.
Chalking Crispy's ENFp typing up to "Doesn't use Socionics" too.
How many is that now?
Hey I found my result without taking a test, and guess what? It sounds exactly like me, and most other healthy INTj's!
RCOEI
withdrawn, not wild and crazy, private, loner, not relationship obsessed, not swayed by emotions, insensitive to the needs of others, unhelpful, interested in intellectual pursuits, avoidant, does not put the needs of others ahead of self, thinks before acting, very scientific, not upset by the misfortune of strangers, avoids small talk, values solitude, private, does not get worked up about most things, fearless, unaffected by the suffering of others, calm in crisis, not easily excited, won't do much to avoid rejection, not known for generosity, not easily confused, cold, not prone to complimenting others, dislikes most people but tries to get along to minimize hostility, hard to get to know, more dominant than submissive, not easily hurt, driven by reason, influenced more by self than others, rarely worried, hard to impress, not that interested in relationships, hard to influence, not concerned about failing when trying something new, self confident, knows why they do things, not easily moved to tears, not prone to jealousy, not guided by moods
If there is no correlation, please explain to me what is NOT LII about that paragraph.
Also, your correlations break down, since Neuroticism and Extraversion are not fully orthogonal: there's a tendency towards low N in high E, and vice-versa. And saying that Openness is N is saying all Sensors are closed-minded, and also by implication are dimwits, since there is, again, a correlation between intelligence and Openness. [EDIT: nvm, have read up on Openness, but it does raise a different problem. Read below.]
Also, I would like to know where you got your definitions of the dichotomies from. My understanding, as per Rick's site, is that the dichotomies are where you focus your attention (with the exception of J/P), not "are you more X than the rest of the populace with opposing trait Y".
EDIT
The problem is this: "Each factor consists of a cluster of more specific traits that correlate together." When mapping one system to another, those clusters of traits never line up perfectly. In fact, just looking at Openness alone, the trait of "narrow range of interests" sounds like Socionics Introversion, meaning your one Big Five factor, that is (supposedly) orthogonal to the other five factors does not map to a single dichotomy in Socionics. That is a problem.
This is the reason why correlations are always going to be loose, and why I am highly skeptical of your correlations, considering how "neat" they are. (And a funny bit of trivia for your consideration... in geography, when someone draws a straight line on a map, it's called messy geography.)
Anyway, I have a headache, so I'm not really going to bother with a complete critique of your Established Truth there, but as I said, I am extremely skeptical; perhaps by virtue of very much breaking your theory there myself.
It all ties back to what brought all these personality theories around in the first place. None of these were invented; they are a collection of observed phenomenon, originally described in detail by Jung and expanded, for better or for worse, by everyone else. I can tie it all together so easily because they all have the same reference point. You can be skeptical. It took me about a year of reading to get to this point, and I won't be surprised if it takes others similar amounts of time to understand why. I still struggle to see why so many people want things to be complicated and enigmatic. The simple answers are in plain sight, taunting you.
EDIT: If any of you haven't tried yet, read the SLOAN type description that would match your current socionics self-type according to my previous lists (reading both the healthy and unhealthy ones helps), and see if it doesn't describe you better than whatever SLOAN type you tested as before. The most common mistake is tests and bad test questions, and that is most likely the case here. Notice how almost all the misses were only off by one letter.
EDIT2:
You are describing the trend of unhealthy introverts in an extroverted world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanks Arthur
Also this isn't geography; it's mathematics.
Fair enough. xc|u|an and xc|u|ai both describe me equally well.
Extroversion results were moderately high which suggests you are, at times, overly talkative, outgoing, sociable and interacting at the expense of developing your own individual interests and internally based identity.
Orderliness results were low which suggests you are overly flexible, random, scattered, and fun seeking at the expense too often of structure, reliability, work ethic, and long term accomplishment.
Emotional Stability results were moderately high which suggests you are relaxed, calm, secure, and optimistic.
Accommodation results were medium which suggests you are moderately kind natured, trusting, and helpful while still maintaining your own interests.
Inquisitiveness results were moderately high which suggests you are intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical.
Your Global5/SLOAN type is SCUAI
So Gilly's not a Feeling type then? :indifferent:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crispy
Don't be silly. You appear to believe that people are exact type templates, which even a cursory evaluation of human personality proves false, especially considering type theory has no basis in neurology to begin with -- it's all rooted on bullshit mysticism. Human beings are far more complex than this.
Incidentally, I'm actually almost borderline on Agreeable/Egocentric (my proper SLOAN+ score is sLue|I|). Most Beta NFs I've found are more egocentric than myself.
Yeah, INFJ. There's no direct relationship though, like there isn't a direct relationship between any disjointed type system and any other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldilocks
I require evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crispy
RCUEI
[OT] I'm throwing a few grains of salt in your common soup...(and yes it's off topic and is more about the comments above)
While my personal opinion leans towards Crispy's view (due to both my own intuition and my learning and reading so far) I don't reject the hypothesis that mappings between systems could be less trivial than a 1:1 matching (for instance MBTI and socionics function orders are incompatible, and there is the j/p switch...but I read people putting that switch in doubt, whereas for me it's obvious it should take place)
I'm also under the impression from reading old posts on this forum that the only few people that really knew (that is for me, people that just haven't read predigested conclusions of the main books (Jung,Augusta,Boukalov and al.) but instead actually read them entirely, and are really aware of what the current scientific consensus really is (or plural, when there are different debated conflicting views) ...Because yes I tend to discard all non-scientific opinions on that subject, there's no mysticism involved, either it holds solid ground or we're all wasting time in a giant online tea-party!)...so I think these people ultimately end up being tired of having to constantly argue and re-prove things that are established, against a tide of tireless newbies being way more lower on the theory understanding scale....and the knowledgeable ones end up leaving the boat.
I'm not talking about anyone here in particular, nor am I implying anyone in this particular thread is a newbie (if there must be one, it's me, I just joined) it's an on-purpose gross generalization of what I perceive, to make my point.
Also be sure that you'll read for any topic one thing and it's contrary. Above you can read there's no scientific proof of it being linked to anything neurobiological or developmental/genetic, in other posts (no need to look very far, just browse the article forum) you'll read there are clear links, including inborn traits.
For the sake of our souls and mental sanity, please, please, wouldn't it be possible to have a sticky thread as an entry point called "For those really interested in the theories themselves and their deeper understanding, it's where we are so far" - and this post would contain the current scientific consensus, saying what has been scientifically proved (and thus shouldn't even be put into question, unless to shake it a bit to see how strong it holds, as we need criticism too) Also it should clearly state: this point and this point are under active debate when it's the case. This point and this point should be taken with utter precautions because there's very little evidence. etc etc (and don't answer me that in this case everything is under debate and nothing is proved, otherwise stop it all already and quit, it's useless)
Don't misinterpret my views, I'm someone having a lot of faith and a part of me hate the coldness of the scientific approach, which kills any magic there could be out there and reduce it to formulas (if it isn't proved, it doesn't exist or is pure speculation, so no magic until further notice)
But what do you guys want? Do you want that people continue seeing this all as merely more useful than a computer generated daily horoscope, some kind of obscure, dodgy and sloppy art, making you look something between a shaman and an illuminated mad person? But maybe you do like it to be this way as it makes you more powerful versus those in ignorance?
I'm afraid that the scientific way is the only way we should follow, we're already on very ethereal and so abstract grounds by the very nature of the subject: the mind. Let's not complicate it more than it already is, as I'm under the impression that many people here like to challenge things just for the sake of "self-opinion right" (i.e "I value individual over the rest, we all have the right to have our own opinion, even if that implies discarding over 100 years of hard work by sociologists, psychologists and other scientists, who worked full time for entire lives on a subject I only read on the interwebz")
"Humble": Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful.
We all should be, the things we're talking about are not trivial.
What ?
"What for?" would be more appropriate... :O
Take the test, post your result.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeroZen
Short pragmatic to the point version:
1) I see the same trend here as in any other "technical" forum: turnover then possible slow decline due to brain drain (gurus leaving after being fed up by the constant fight for truth and blatant ignorance)
2) I propose a rather naive but nonetheless practical solution to help us keep our sanity level high enough, because constantly reading one thing and it's exact contrary is exhausting, especially when there is strong established scientific evidence for one side and not the other
Better?
And no I won't post my SLOAN/Big5 results because taking this (rather poorly designed) test on that particular site yields results that depend too much on my instantaneous mood and level of self-confidence (so I'm borderline between an healthy and a non healthy person)
And yes on that particular site, due to wordings, results can make you sound like a horrible person lol
Just PM me your results and I will re-write it to make you sound special and post it under your name.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeroZen
-> well done! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
I don't want to be more special than I already am.
It's just that one of the two results I got had strictly speaking NOT A SINGLE positive adjective and looked like the description of the most despicable person on earth. And while I can have sometimes a low self esteem and be too modest about my qualities and strengths, I can't be that bad otherwise I wouldn't have any friend nor social life and I would have probably killed myself lol
More seriously the second result was more convincing, it was SCOAI - Inquisitive, and no pun intended but the last bit reads: "thinks they are extraordinary" lol
And like many people I think, when discovering how these theories (personality psychology in general) could describe you down to your most hidden and embarrassing negative points, I had no other way than to reconsider my notion of me being original...:shock:
Wasn't that hard after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeroZen
Look at all of the people around you who have been the same socionics type for ages (not yourself) who have taken the big 5 and gotten at least 3/4 of the letters matching with their socionics type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksei
If Gilly considers himself more egocentric than accommodating, than yes; by definition he is a Thinking type. But you take for granted that Gilly having a "big ego" means he fits the definition of Egocentric. I also find it laughable that you require evidence for my words but you will accept people's self typings at face value (especially since Gilly has been switching between an F type and a T type for a long period of time). It seems to be you would like to pick and choose which data fits in accordance to your worldview.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksei
Additionally on the Gilly matter, I do believe he is most likely ENFj. But for the most part I think he is accommodating as well. The only side of him you consider to be egocentric was when he yelled at your extremely annoying friend. (I can PM to you some of the things your friend said to instigate such responses if you really want.)
This is because you scored Limbic > Calm on the test two times. That is why I call them the Unhealthy / Healthy spectrum. It decides if the focus is on negative or positive traits.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeroZen
I'll repass the test later, meanwhile let's say I'm somewhere between SCOAI and RLOAI.
PS: nobody has anything to say about my naive off-topic idea? Crispy: don't you agree it could help somehow?
Alright, then maybe you could direct me to where the heat currently is, as I'm pretty sure all gurus didn't vanish in the nature?
But wait, what's in your signature?! That's disgusting! You lurk in a forum you say is full of non motivated people, but in the meantime are trying to hijack them to your place?! That's very mean! :wink:
By the way as I identify to IEI (and to follow the stereotype), I agree to write it myself due to my strong beta-willpower and using my wonderful lyricist skills (lol english is not even my natural language) but I would need a couple LII's for scientific facts and a few ILI's for constructive criticism, possibly one extra ILE to throw in the air weird ideas or aspects we could forget or under-look, and maybe some representatives from the SF types, to soften us and remember us we're dealing with humans and not machines, even if I could fill that place (but when I'm around LII and ILI in a working context, I have to extinguish this aspect when facing their overwhelming and cold logic, not that I have weak ethics as it's always obvious for me, but hey...sometimes I don't even bother explaining, they simply don't get it!)
XD
Are you experiencing the "it was better before syndrome?", do you feel nostalgic? Getting older? hehe :D
Come on! I'm sure there's plenty of energy to tap into! And even if it's soon winter in northern hemisphere and people will see their motivation diminished, it's also a period where people are more often at home, possibly in front of their computer...
I take this as a denial to help by yourself, but you probably have your reasons! :wink:
I'll take a look at your other place, since you seem to reside in both, and see if the subtle difference in shit smell is more pleasant for my tastes over there.
Meanwhile, I'll see if creating another sticky post in here would make sense, maybe by posting in the correct forum and not squatting this interesting thread, as to be honest and talking seriously, when not taking maintenance into account (as it's prone to become out-dated so someone will have to maintain it) it's not a tough job, or at least hasn't have to be in the beginning. I'm talking about a summary forum post, not writing a book. Plus it must not duplicate the wiki.
Over-debated and never ending cyclic topics are easy to spot, and many people have the same precise questions and often same false assumptions.
That's not quite what I meant. You claim that after a year of studying type theory, you've come to the conclusion that they're a collection of observed phenomenon. So I want you to point out where they're stated to be such, and what evidence the authors have for it. having read (read: superficially skimmed) Personality Types, Jung himself seems to be of the mind that his cognitive processes are merely rough analytical tools, which is what I treat them as.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crispy
I tend to give people in forums like this the benefit of the doubt where it comes to self-typings (assuming they don't act in a way egregiously unlike their stated type), as I usually don't know them well enough to correct them. Gilly himself seems to fit the definition of EIE quite well (although in MBTI he's some sort of Ne-dominant -- probably an overemotional ENTP). He also appears to be typed |S|LUEI (from an old thread I found looking for SLOAN in this sub-forum), which also fits what little I know of him.Quote:
If Gilly considers himself more egocentric than accommodating, than yes; by definition he is a Thinking type. But you take for granted that Gilly having a "big ego" means he fits the definition of Egocentric. I also find it laughable that you require evidence for my words but you will accept people's self typings at face value (especially since Gilly has been switching between an F type and a T type for a long period of time). It seems to be you would like to pick and choose which data fits in accordance to your worldview.
I don't have much cause to consider him either, but SLOAN is straightforward enough that if he considers himself egocentric he likely is.Quote:
Additionally on the Gilly matter, I do believe he is most likely ENFj. But for the most part I think he is accommodating as well. The only side of him you consider to be egocentric was when he yelled at your extremely annoying friend. (I can PM to you some of the things your friend said to instigate such responses if you really want.)
A consensus has not been reached. Depending on if the theory of Socionics survives the misinformation cancer (which it should) long enough to be spread into the scientific community, your idea may be great in the coming decade. But the science of Socionics, if we can even yet call it science, is only in the infantile stages of development. The best we can do now is make the theory simpler and easier to understand. The more people that can comprehend the the basics of the theory the better. Rest assured that the ideas that survive in the long term will be the ones that adhere to the truth. Our understanding of socionics will undergo constant and never-ending improvement, just like everything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeroZen
If everything you say is correct then your conclusion should be that both Gilly and You are ENTp. Not that you are ENFj's who have many ENTp traits. Gilly recently thought he was ENTp for a bit, so that may be true. All we can do is wait until Gilly is 100% sure of his own type. As of now I'd suggest you read some ENTp descriptions (and maybe a few ENTj ones). You may realize your mistake and become a better typist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksei
Well I have noticed that, even though I see all 16 types as being both the traits associated with organized and unorganized, Ne/Si types seem to fit on average the traits of being unorganized more, for really what's the point? There are more things in the life of Se/Ni types to plan and build toward, and they are called decisive, which is another trait of organized types. For organized, just look up J in MBTI, because there is more to the organized dichotomy than just being "organized." I know a lot organized Ne/Sis too, my dual friend is one, but Ne/Si types are easygoing and the only reason for organizing something is so that they feel more comfortable, or because that's how they were raised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksei
Another weak correlation would be limbic/calm. On average Betas are probably somewhat more limbic, simply because that's the way their values can tend to be, more so than Delta, who are really the calmest quadra.
The I/N dichotomy seems to be a rather weak N/S correlation. Obviously N/S is different in MBTI than it is Socionics, or else duality would be way too difficult. A/E is a moderate F/T correlation. There's no real good correlation from SLOAN to rational or irrational. I don't agree with Cripsy that these are correlated so strongly. It's more likely that people are mistyped because of thinking they're the same type in MBTI as they are Socionics. MBTI came first here, so a lot of people just copied their MBTI type in Socionics, albeit somewhat accidentally, and developed a status for that type--that's what happens on a forum with people who don't have access to a lot of differing writings and opinions in Russian.
Most were mistyped in MBTI before coming to Socionics.
Saying Delta is Calm while Betas are Limbic is just calling Deltas healthy and Betas unhealthy.
Here's an example of a Limbic (Unhealthy) SLUEI (ENTp) vs a Calm (Healthy) SCUEI (ENTp):
SLUEI:
SCUEI:Quote:
prone to addiction, often late, does not think things work out for the best, impatient, discontent, negative, opinionated, acts without thinking, preoccupied with self, easily frustrated, not that interested in others, act at the expense of others, becomes aggressive when they feel hurt, acts wild and crazy, frustrated and angry when people don't live up to expectations, slow to forgive, takes charge, does not behave in way that is acceptable to society, pessimistic, agnostic/atheistic tendencies, not usually happy, not calm in crisis, does not accomplish work on time, spontaneous, not on good terms with everyone, demanding, misbehaved, improper, avoids responsibilities, not willing to let things rest, acts out frustrations on others, has a need to maintain high levels of excitement, rarely prepared, often bored while working, aggressive, asks questions nobody else does, hard to reason with, likes to be the center of attention, acts without planning, retaliatory, asks many questions, quick to correct others, more pleasure seeking than responsible, not hard working, disorganized, loses things, unable to control cravings
Notice how both of these sounds exactly like ENTp's as we know them.Quote:
not afraid of doing the wrong things, does not value rules and regulations, prefers unpredictable to organized, does not accomplish work on time, needs to maintain high levels of excitement, out for own personal gain, not afraid to draw attention to self, more pleasure seeking than responsible, not bothered by disorder, retaliatory, thrives on the rush of risk taking, unpredictable, asks questions that nobody else does, often does not know what they are doing, spontaneous, first to act, not easily hurt, not apprehensive about new encounters, does not readily admit mistakes, not a perfectionist, not apologetic, disorganized, socially comfortable, outgoing, calm in crisis, fearless, atheist/agnostic tendencies, good at getting people to have fun, opinionated, not easily moved to tears, sexually immodest, adventurous, unconventional, aggressive, often late, high energy level, likes the spotlight, ambivalent about the needs of others, worry free, acts without thinking or planning, bad at saving money, selfish
Firstly, those descriptions aren't the best, there are some unfitting things being said in all of those, I would never be satisfied with one. The MBTI profiles and SLOAN dichotomy descriptions I am satisfied with choosing. Secondly, I'm not saying that Betas are limbic and Deltas are calm. I did say the correlations are weak, and I don't think Deltas are necessarily more healthy than Betas either. Limbic adds the most tension to the type, which is Beta-ish. Lastly, since you have the impression that MBTI = Socionics (more or less) than you're free to argue that they fit, and I might think that some fit more than others.
Of course not, it's not your type :PQuote:
Originally Posted by polikujm
My point of putting both of those up there is to show that Calm is associated with all the good in the type and Limbic is associated with all the bad in the type. This is different from "tension". ENTp was used as it is the generic type.
I agree with all of that, though Delta STs are probably organized, and Beta NFs are more likely unstructured (we value decisiveness, but we aren't exactly too decisive ourselves -- that's why we need our ST counterparts). Same with A/E (Beta NFs are likely E, Delta STs I think lean more towards A).Quote:
Originally Posted by polikujm
All Beta's and Gamma's are Decisive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksei
All Alpha's and Delta's are Judicious.
Once again, learn the theory please.
I wasn't so much referring to the Decisive dichotomy (yes, I know all Betas are Decisive), as much as decisiveness itself. :Ni: is strongly characterized by uncertainty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crispy
I don't see any other Big 5 type match as closely with ENTp than SXUEI, do you? :p
I searched all 32 for submissive and found that the following theoretical socionic's equivalents were listed as "more dominant than submissive":
Healthy INTj
Healthy ENTj
Healthy ESTj
Unhealthy ENTj
Healthy ESTp
Nothing appeared for passive, but if I find other synonyms ill list em.
Back to the consensus topic:
When considering all theories from a distant point of view, and when being not too picky about the wordings used (for instance ethics is not feelings, but hm saying something is good or bad implies you feel it's good or bad...etc) it's more than obvious that Big5/SLOAN, MBTI and socionics all talk about the same thing, all use scales/dichotomies you name it and all end up with the same amount of types (statistically proved, and yes I'm omitting 5th dimension on purpose)
Now it's pretty clear that due to the differences in test methods, the way the theories evolved on their own to meet their own particular needs (Big5: psychiatric treatment vs MBTI: human resources and career management vs socionics: personal and interpersonal knowledge) and also because of the aforementioned differences in wordings taking huge proportions (because people are picky in the end...XD) mappings between the 3 systems are obviously not a 1:1 match, but it's not incompatible at all either.
We just have to clearly define those three M mapping functions (MBTI <->(M)<-> socionics <->(M')<-> SLOAN <->(M'')<-> MBTI)
But you eluded my remark about function order being incompatible between MBTI and socionics (and I also shared some thoughts about that in my ID thread in beta forum) not that it's really on-topic but this need to be clarified (at least for me!)
You say there's no consensus?
Does it mean we're living on the edge?!
In front of us, there is just darkness and chaos?
We are some kind of pioneers then?
That's even more exciting than talking about tcaudilllg!
KeroZen starts running around the forum, shouting random things! Youhooooo!! (I should be sleeping...)
Also keep in mind SLOAN+ is there for the same reason we have subtypes extensions here.
IEI aka Diplomat aka Counselor: me needs find practical consensus so we can move on kthx! (and also needs sleep)
oh teh no! ashton is a bossy ENTj, I'm doomed!!! :eek:
Go to bed, please?
First of all the J/P switch is completely false. MBTI messed up the true order of functions and neglected to address it until after they mass-marketed it. The result is the Ego and Id being switch for introverts and Super-ego and Super-Id switched for extroverts. This explains why MBTI couldn't get intertype relations to work properly (and why socionics, with intertype relations, uses the true order of functions). But the MBTI type descriptions mostly focus on the four dichotomies and as such, correlate all too well with socionics descriptions, including club and temperament, which together form a complete type.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeroZen
But lol go to bed! I thought I was talking alone but you are all still there exactly like me! bwarf!
Brain parasite is growing stronger every time I sleep...I'm afraid to sleep... :D
If I do tests I get SCUAN, Unstructured, although SCUAI would make more sense. But as we know tests are always the most reliable way of typing.
Bah, tests are a shit way of typing. SLOAN is so simple I'd actually consider Big 5 tests a waste of time overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssmall
Socionics intertype relations involve numerous characterization traits that MBTI functions altogether lack. It can't be handwaved away as being a result of the "correct" configuration of functions having been found, because all 16 function configurations are the same in both system -- the letters are just different. As such, we could use the same letter codes for both, and all that would change, type relations-wise is that the letter mesh would change (for example, ENFj would be INTp's dual rather than INTJ's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crispy
lol. I got SCUEI, which is apparently the "moderately horrible human being" type. But it's also almost 100% inaccurate.
I accidentally read the SLUEI description first, which is the horrible human being type, and it was even worse.Quote:
not afraid of doing the wrong things, does not value rules and regulations, prefers unpredictable to organized, does not accomplish work on time, needs to maintain high levels of excitement, out for own personal gain, not afraid to draw attention to self, more pleasure seeking than responsible, not bothered by disorder, retaliatory, thrives on the rush of risk taking, unpredictable, asks questions that nobody else does, often does not know what they are doing, spontaneous, first to act, not easily hurt, not apprehensive about new encounters, does not readily admit mistakes, not a perfectionist, not apologetic, disorganized, socially comfortable, outgoing, calm in crisis, fearless, atheist/agnostic tendencies, good at getting people to have fun, opinionated, not easily moved to tears, sexually immodest, adventurous, unconventional, aggressive, often late, high energy level, likes the spotlight, ambivalent about the needs of others, worry free, acts without thinking or planning, bad at saving money, selfish
But, oddly enough, the list of preferred careers is quite accurate.
Sounds like this description was written by an Fe-hater.Quote:
author, freelance writer, philosopher, playwrite, novelist, memeber of the performing arts, poet, screenwriter, film director, philosophy professor, actor, entertainer, filmmaker, film producer, creative director, theater industry, music journalist, actor, broadcast journalist, activist, music performer, art director, songwriter, travel writer, english professor, artist, editor, arts and media industry, egyptologist, art curator, theater teacher, pschoanalyst, film critic, diplomat, journalist, freelance artist, dictator, college professor, dj, composer, comedian, psychotherapist, photojournalist, tv producer, music producer, casting director, magazine editor, bookseller, record store owner, comic book artist, museum curator, entertainment lawyer, news anchor, political analyst, book editor, sociologist, political scientist, film editor, theologian, dancer, archeologist, clinical psychologist, international relations specialist, advertising executive
Egocentric descriptions all sound awful, due to being egocentric.
Let's make my point clear then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crispy
Based on wikipedia MBTI pages, cognitiveprocesses.com, typelogic.com and humanmetrics.com and in fact any other official MBTI or MBTI look-alike site online I've read so far, including Keirsey (and please if you want to tell those are not pure MBTI and are incompatible, then post concrete evidence that those differences are more than nitpicking around terminology and focus differences in application area and tool purpose) They all affirm they come from a Jungian heritage. All.
I'm going to talk about the j/p switch and function order difference between all these systems and socionics. What I call j/p switch is only needed for introverts/intratims (so for I types in both theories) meaning for instance that INTp becomes INTJ and INTP becomes INTj.
1) I gathered from the maximum number of sources stereotype "nicknames", in both camps. And when reaching something like 10-15 7-10 "nicknames" for each type, the j/p switch is clearly obvious for all introverts. Anyone having a minimum amount of intuition would get it just by reading those series of words and trying to group them together (I'm sure even a kid could do it), and as it's a really "light" point, discussion-wise, I won't even bother giving you an example.
2) One system is focused on functions, the other on information elements. But what are those information elements if not inputs or products of those functions? Simple example for the Feeling function (taken from MBTI auxiliary Fe description) "Fe seeks social connections and creates harmonious interactions through polite, considerate, and appropriate behavior." Alright, what is this talking about if not ethics valuation and production? Aka "what I feel about something, is it good? does it make me feel better?"
3) Also thinking in functional terms is perfectly valid socionics. But on wikisocion one can read: "According to Model A, there are eight functions present in each type, one for each information element. In this respect socionics differs from canonical MBTI and Jung's Typology, in which only four elements are present in each type.". This is in contradiction with *modern* MBTI: "Later personality researchers (notably Linda V. Berens)[24] added four additional functions to the descending hierarchy, the so-called "shadow" functions to which the individual is not naturally inclined but which can emerge when the person is under stress." So you can see both systems have same 8 functions and both have a notion of "conscious functions" and "unconscious functions" (even if in detail and order they differ)
4) Even by not going too deeply into said details, when applying the j/p switch for introverts, nobody can argue that the two first functions (MBTI: 1) dominant, 2) auxiliary, socionics: 1) leading, 2) creative) suddenly match for all 16 types. Ex:
INTP = INTj = Ti Ne
INTJ = INTp = Ni Te
5) No need to apply the j/p switch for extroverts, they already match:
ESFP = ESFp = Se Fi
ESFJ = ESFj = Fe Si
(you can verify for all 16 types if you don't trust me)
6) Intertype relations do transpose 1:1 between both systems when applying the j/p switch, and guess what, it's exactly what typelogic.com did! They just renamed "duality" into "anima/animus"...(I hear you cry "but it's different! it must be different!") Well no, having studied both, it's the same but different wordings, inter-type relations wise. Also no need to point out how commercial dating sites are leeching socionics intertype model to provide their advices on top of MBTI/jungian derivatives (but some don't take too much risks and only propose people "identity" relations because it's safer and helps them say they make people date easily whereas they don't care if they'll stay together or not..)
Now onto the differences, because it couldn't be too easy either:
1) About functions balance in MBTI I'll quote this: "Jung and Myers considered the attitude of the Auxiliary, Tertiary, and Inferior functions to be the opposite of the Dominant. In this interpretation, if the Dominant function is extraverted, then the other three are introverted, and vice versa. However, many modern practitioners hold that the attitude of the Tertiary function is the same as the Dominant." Meaning with INFJ as example:
Ni Fe Ti Se -> Two inputs, two outputs, one of each kind, looks very balanced and efficient to handle life and survival
2) In socionics with same example it's unbalanced, in the sense that both "captors" (inputs) are introverted and both "actors" (outputs) are extroverted:
Ni Fe Si Te -> Two introverted inputs, two extroverted outputs, makes a very nice "information processing vector"... I could translate that into a cellular automata and each type would be a "glider" always going into the same direction (nice concept though, but a bit akin to walking with one leg half the size of the other...)
3) But then, who cares, maybe it's just me in this case nitpicking about function orders, they probably have different definitions for each of them (each "slot/position"), and also what one system consider "cognitive" functions could be different from the other which considers things more in terms of "conscious" or "unconscious" processes...To be honest, I don't know.
4) My current hypothesis is that MBTI allows to test and see the person's EGO and SUPER-ID blocks in model A (with my IEI example: EGO: NiFe SUPID: TiSe.....well SeTi, but no nitpicking I said!)
5) Then a last example with IEI duality this time: When you have to explain in the most simple way to someone why duality "ticks" and why conflict is a "conflict", what would you choose to draw on that napkin in front of you:
a) using MBTI functions notation
IEI + SLE = Ni Fe Ti Se + Se Ti Fe Ni = :love:
IEI + LSE = Ni Fe Ti Se + Te Si Ne Fi = :reallymad:
b) using socionics functions notation
"
- Well you have four blocks in your mind, ego, super-ego, id and super-id (while drawing squares on napkin...) and your ego rings something in your partner's head...here...(while pointing at little square)...and..
- Come on! Get to the point I hate when people turn around things and are not clear! (said the SLE)
"
PS: If any of the information sources I cited, including wikipedia and wikisocion, or any other site is false or erroneous, what are we waiting for correcting them? Leaving falsehoods online is misleading to people and we must do our possible to prevent that. And don't forget to paragraph!
I'm still ESTJ(j) going by that scheme. Only MBTI got me 'thinking' I'm an introvert.
EDIT: Besides for the wonderful individuals who showed me the light, that is. You won't be forgotten.
Anima/Animus on Typelogic describes conflict not duality.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeroZen
Duality is described by the relation Novelty.
Google define novelty:
S: (n) freshness, novelty (originality by virtue of being refreshingly novel)
Google define Animus:
S: (n) animosity, animus, bad blood (a feeling of ill will arousing active hostility)
As you can see Typelogic is the closest MBTI site to make it to socionics' level. (They are still missing things like calling Benefactor/Beneficiary and Supervier/Supervisee completely different names)
Listing these would be a good idea, considering I found the opposite to be true. (INTJ described as Scientist and INTP described as Thinker is a good example).Quote:
Originally Posted by KeroZen
I'll reveal some of the other holes as I see them. The best thing to do would be to ignore the MBTI functions that Myers/Briggs released prematurely and look for where all these personality theories sprung from; namely Jung's Psychological Types. There you will find how introvert always means introvert, and rational always means rational, and type change remains impossible.
I beg your pardon but (wikipedia anima/animus)
"The anima and animus in Carl Jung's school of analytical psychology, are the two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind, as opposed to both the theriomorphic and inferior-function of the shadow archetypes, as well as the abstract symbol sets that formulate the archetype of the Self. The anima and animus are described by Jung as elements of his theory of the collective unconscious, a domain of the unconscious that transcends the personal psyche. In the unconscious of the male, it finds expression as a feminine inner personality: anima; equivalently, in the unconscious of the female it is expressed as a masculine inner personality: animus."
And that makes Animus into Duality because?...
Also elsewhere I've been reproached of thinking in MBTI "shadow functions terms", but read the quote in my signature.
Holy shit! You insensitive emotionless robot! They forgot to include a heart in the package and you got a plastic pump instead! :D
Come on! Doesn't it ring anything? It's called anima/animus and not anima, the definition on typelogic is "Anima fits Dr. Beebe's description of the anima/anumus: each is the other's inferior (4th) function"
And from what I quoted from the wikipedia page, doesn't it evoke you your quest to find your soul-mate? The one that fills the opposite part in you? Ying/Yang?
And on typelogic.com:
Novelty = intriguingly different: interestingly so
Also on this page: When Anima Meets Animus
"ANIMA AND ANIMUS FIGURES
The characters played by Juliette Binoche and Johnny Depp in the film Chocolat are archetypal figures, the animus and the anima. This is what gave the movie its enchanting aspect, its magical feel and its deep, delightful spell casting. Let's learn more."
Didn't see the movie but I'm not sure from description and user reviews on IMDB that this was about conflicting and painful human relations?
To tame things down keep in mind that functions order is a rather hot topic, as summarized in this page:
Jungian cognitive functions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We could accommodate the order with socionics but there are still differences in what each system "sees" and "test" (I see many people saying MBTI is about what people do/act, socionics is about how people think)
For me those are two different but compatible "points of view" (observation points and angles) looking at the exact same thing.
EDIT: NOTE THAT THIS ARTICLE HINTS THAT TYPELOGIC = MBTI + IT TENDS TO SHOW THAT MBTI IS USING JUNGIAN COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS (ARTICLE TITLE)
Compatibility implies being able to translate from one to another.
I know I'd like it to be this way, but as I'm objective, I remember I read some statistical studies weighting against that. But in these studies, it's not clear if they were aware of the j/p switch problem when asking people typed in one system how they felt with same type in other system.
Really??:shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksei
Matching inferior functions is a BAD thing. Inferior function of INTJ is Se, so ESFP being Se starts conflict, not duality. That's why I said they switched introverts Ego/Id and extroverts Super-ego/Super-id. Conflict is still visible in this system.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeroZen
Also I'm aware of Ganin's view on the subject:
How to convert MBTI® type to Socionics type
I must be a myth propagator then... but I'm not alone (discussed here and elsewhere archives many times by many people...)
If it doesn't match with j/p switch for an individual, then maybe he's borderline on a particular dichotomy with one of the "telescopes" used to look at them, due to said telescope bias (position, angle) and just changing a single letter would be perfect then.
Also we have sub types and SLOAN has SLOAN+ precisely to cope with in-between cases, and often those in-between cases fall right in the focal spot of one telescope but are slightly out of bounds for the other...
SLOAN+ is useless. It's hard enough to find tests that accurately deduce Type. SLOAN+ is trying to ascertain Subtype through directly translating answers that would change given mood.
If your on the Judging side of the Judging/Perceiving spectrum in Socionics, you are on the Judging side of the Judging/Perceiving spectrum in MBTI. People that take tests for granted cling on to the type they got on the MBTI test and then when they change types in socionics, think the two are incompatible. The truth is MBTI tests are extremely inaccurate and no esteem should be put in them. A lot of people don't even bother to read all 16 descriptions before getting settled into their chosen type.
Crispy: no this doesn't hold, I don't agree sorry.
From a MBTI/Jung point of view:
"The Inferior function is the personality type's Achilles' heel. This is the function they are least comfortable with. Like the Tertiary, the Inferior function strengthens with maturity.[17]"
This implies something we have and tend to improve. Meeting someone being better at it is not a conflict because it's of the same "quality" (i vs e) you use. So you want to be stronger in Se, meet someone mastering strong Se. Because if you meet someone having strong Si you wouldn't be able to use it (because in MBTI you are even weaker in Si than Se)
I gave an example (napkin A) using MBTI, then let's see how duality is explained in socionics, using your INTj example this time.
From wikisocion:
"The third row of Model A (functions 5 and 6) is called the Super-id block. The subject will appreciate direct help to the Super-id, and sees tasks related to it as chores best left to others, but also as a source of frequent recreation. When feeling like there's something missing in his life, the subject will try to use his Super-id functions, but with limited effect, as it often comes off as overkill and is usually poorly developed. Only in the presence of complementary types can an individual let loose his child-like Super-id without fear of criticism. But ironically, although these types will maintain a good deal of their Super-id information in the atmosphere, they will at the same time doggedly encourage him to keep using his Ego functions, which in the end is the healthiest thing for him to do anyway."
- INTj in socionics : Ti Ne Fi Se | Fe Si Te Ni
- your dual in socionics is ESFj aka ESE
- ESFj in socionics : Fe Si Te Ni | Ti Ne Fi Se
you value Fe Si in your dual alright?
- INTP in MBTI : Ti Ne Si Fe, don't care about shadow
- ESFJ in MBTI : Fe Si Ti Ne, idem
you still value Fe Si in your dual.
In practice I'm clearly Fe, and only Fe seeking people like my Fe expressions as it tends to annoy Fi (in slot #1 or #2) people, but surprisingly even ENTj's who are supposed to be Fe in socionics.
I've tried to express that point already in my ID thread and above: it's like MBTI see EGO + SUPERID of model-A because in "apparence" that's what is visible to outsiders.
As for blatantly saying MBTI self-tests are worse than socionics ones I should slap you in the face and start a duel! I'm being devil's advocate here as if I had to chose a side, I would chose socionics with no hesitation!
Self tests are the same exact shit, wether people answer 40 questions on humanmetrics.com or 40 questions on socionics.com it's not enough! (but nobody said it was though)
Also saying SLOAN+ is useless is equivalent to saying subtypes are useless, no more no less. Don't need more details than you already got? Then fine, don't need to look into subtypes (because yes I'm sure we could go to 100th sub type level if we could, but it's pointless and dealing with 16 types is already a challenge) Nonetheless you can't discard them like this.
As for the j/p scale meaning, maybe there's a difference because in socionics the j/p letter is only relative to dominant function quality (i or e) hence INTj is Ti, it's a judging function hence "j".
For IEI my first function is Ni, perception hence "p", but I appear as a judging type because of my constant Fe outbursts, where I output random thoughts and feelings about everything around me, making people think I judge things wheras it's just my way of expression.
Also proof that you are a real INTj (and I really do have many friends of this type I love) you don't have Fe in your two first blocks but you value it, and everytime I interact with people of this type it's very kind and cosy because I master Fe better than them, but they are not afraid of me hurting them (because they value Fe and I'm giving them good Fe, usually by cheering them up and giving them advices for love affairs hehe)
On the other hand I value and respect their strong logic which I always find stronger than mine. So right now I'm shaking in front of my pooter waiting for you to destroy my theory with an unbreakable logical counter argument! :shock:
Also I'm not sure you would have reacted in the same way if I had insulted you of being a robot in a Fi way rather than in a Fe way... In fact I'm not even sure a Fi person would have said anything like that hehe!
Someone pointed me to the excellent "Pathetic Hidden Agenda (HA)" page, which gave me one extra level of understanding: Pathetic HA - Wikisocion
From reading this page, it's clear that your weak points are obvious to outsiders, because you already act like a fool trying to mask them when everyone else see them and it's even painful to see you putting yourself in embarrassing situations like this.
I strongly agree (while my pizza is cooking...) that everybody should read the 16 types descriptions in any of these systems.
Not only will see that their type lies at the crossing of many "nearby" types, with which they share a lot but also rather compare than identify to, but also because typology is not about self only.
The beauty of all these theories is that they emphasize our differences. Sadly, many people (when uneducated on the topic) consider it's the opposite, as boxing people inside squares is over limiting ("we are humans, not machines!!!" - "you can't define me I'm more than a type, I'm all the types!")
In this sense, it's vital to know all 16 types and not just yours. We all have different reasons to do that (being happier, finding love, gaining power or edge in relations, understanding others, seeking harmony in relations, managing teams) but they are valid.