SLOAN type and Socionics

[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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeroZen

"What for?" would be more appropriate... :O

---

Take the test, post your result.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeroZen

And yes on that particular site, due to wordings, results can make you sound like an 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 Absurd

Just PM me your results and I will re-write it to make you sound special and post it under your name.

---

-> well done! :)

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeroZen

SCOAI - Inquisitive

---

Wasn't that hard after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aleksei

I require evidence.

---

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

So Gilly's not a Feeling type then? :indifferent:

---

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.

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeroZen

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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crispy

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.

---

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:

---

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 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:

---

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.)

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by KeroZen

PS: nobody has anything to say about my naive off-topic idea? Crispy: don't you agree it could help somehow?

---

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 Aleksei

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.


I don't have much cause to consider him either, but SLOAN is straightforward enough that if he considers himself egocentric he likely is.

---

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

What are they anyway? Let's see if they match mine.

---

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.

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:

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

---

SCUEI:

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

---

Notice how both of these sounds exactly like ENTp's as we know them.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

I would never be satisfied with one.

---

Of course not, it's not your type :P

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

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.

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.

---

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 Aleksei

we value decisiveness, but we aren't exactly too decisive ourselves

---

All Beta's and Gamma's are Decisive.
All Alpha's and Delta's are Judicious.
Once again, learn the theory please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crispy

All Beta's and Gamma's are Decisive.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeroZen

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!)

---

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.

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.

Jerry Sloan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ssmall

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 Crispy

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.

---

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.

lol. I got SCUEI, which is apparently the "moderately horrible human being" type. But it's also almost 100% inaccurate.

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

---

I accidentally read the SLUEI description first, which is the horrible human being type, and it was even worse.

But, oddly enough, the list of preferred careers is quite accurate.

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

---

Sounds like this description was written by an Fe-hater.

Egocentric descriptions all sound awful, due to being egocentric.