Printable View
Just because that's the topic of discussion doesn't mean that's what it's about, as is often the case. There are few people who just come right out and say what's on their mind or what the bottom line is or what issue lies behind their reasoning (though many ESFps I've known do this <3).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
I think you're projecting :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Joy
yeah
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
The bottom line is -- sure, Lytov, Rick and others also mention the 4 dichotomies. That is obvious. What is also obvious is that the precise definitions of those dichotomies are different in MBTT and Socionics, and both Lytov and Rick stress that out in their texts, which is clear to anyone who reads them.
For some types - and individuals - the differences will not be important and their MBTT and Socionics types will be equivalent. For others, it is trickier.
Let's get to the essence of the whole MBTI and Socionics questionaire.
They just use different questions to find the same answer.
There are no more and no less than 16 types. Some of them can be recognized in an instant. But still even those persons can react differently to socionics questions and MBTI questions. The conclusion can't be that the person is then a different type in each observation, but the conclusion has to be that the questions just weren't distinctive enough or can be interpreted in multiple ways...
That's precisely the point -- they don't necessarily arrive at the same answer. Not with those different definitions of extraversion/introversion, for instance. Some people will be Introverts according to both; not everyone. And so on for the other dichotomies. They overlap; sure. But they are not equivalent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
The bottom line is -- the fact that the precise definitions of the four dichotomies are different in MBTT, Keirsey's model and Socionics is irrelevant for almost every practical aspect of typing people. Jarno and I are right when we point that out, and not to recognize that fact is a sure sign of ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
yes but if an MBTI question and Socionics question don't arrive at the same answer, then one question should be ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
But the essence stays, that both MBTI and Socionics are TRYING to describe the same clearly distinguishable types.
Well put. And the fact pointed out by Expat that they don't necessarily arrive at the same answer is also irrelevant. There are still 16 types, and it is obvious that both models are talking about the same groups of people. Each type is rather clearly visable independently of which exact definitions we use in order to demarcate the borders between the types in the different models. The similarities are much more obvious than the differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
Then please say how those definitions of extraversion/introversion as per Lytov are necessarily, for practical purposes if you will, equivalent. Are you saying that all, or even almost all, persons inclined to take the initiative and be nervous for perhaps not doing more are necessarily also socially outgoing? To say that this is a "sign of ignorance" is not a sufficient answer. It's just a put-down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
"Trying", ok -- "succeeding" - not necessarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
EXACTLY. And that should be OBVIOUS to anyone who bothers to compare the models and the types in depth with open eyes and without prejudices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
If you are typing people by those definitions, this fact is surely not irrelevant if you get conflicting results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
seriously, I want to know what "questions" means.
It's not just about specific questions in tests -- questions start from the definitions of dichotomies, and if you (to use again the same example) have such different definitions of extroversion/introversion, of course you will arrive at different questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
Try to think of questions for these extroversion/introversion dichotomies (as per Lytov on the differences):
- MBTT: questions to decide whether one is socially outgoing or rather retiring, solitary
- Socionics: questions to decide whether one feels the need to take the initiative, be active, or whether one would rather not waste energy
Surely most of the questions will be rather different - not just one or two of them.
What I referred to, is a typical question which you would come across in for example MBTI questionaires:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
"If you are tired and need to regain energy, would you rather spend time with a lot of people or be left alone for a while."
Ofcourse we know what the answer for an Introvert and Extrovert should be.
But sometimes the person who needs to answer is in doubt for all sorts of (fair) reasons, therefor giving himself the wrong type.
thought soQuote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
You do know that tests are not a good way to figure out one's socionics type, right?
What your questionaire weakness is, is that it has poor questions. You should use questions of which the answers are pretty quickly to spot for the average person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
MBTI and Socionics try that, and succeed with it quite well. When they don't succeed it's the fault of the question.
They are trying to figure out the same 16 types...
As i wrote, "for example"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
There are also Socionics questions.
All the questions in both models are meant to figure out the same 16 types...
Could you please address how that can work with the differences in the definitions of (for instance) extroversion/introversion, as I pointed out above?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
That's simply wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
No, it's totally right as Lytov also made clear. What does a drive to take the initiative have to do with being alone or not, necessarily?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
As I tried to explain before, every question has it's limits. Socionics experts came up with some questions they thought were pretty right most of the time, so did MBTI experts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
They all have the same 16 types in mind, but to get the most perfect question for it, is difficult.
.
As already said, there are only 16 types. The fact that you can't find an MBTT type description that fits you is irrelevant, and that phenomenon can be explained in two ways that are not mutually exclusive: either you haven't read enough type descriptions and perhaps you don't know your true nature well enough to determine which MBTT type you are, or those type descriptions are not good enough to help you find your correct MBTT type. But they are still TRYING to describe the exact same groups of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
They may be trying, but if they use the 4 dichotomies to do that - not descriptions - and the dichotomies are differently defined, they will not succeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Forget the descriptions for a moment. We are discussing whether the 4 dichotomies will arrive at the same types.
Incorrect. Extraversion/introversion is a biological phenomenon -- which I have pointed out several times. It has to do with (among other things) what energizes you, and this is sometimes pointed out in MBTT. The biological differences between extraversion and introversion and their correlations with different types of diseases have been described in length also by Jung and others. If you are truly an extravert or truly an introvert has nothing to do with which definition of extraversion/introversion you prefer. You are either born an introvert or an extravert -- independently of how each model tries to explain that dichotomy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
.
Fine, but Jarno's point, with which Diana and I disagree, is that it necessarily has to do with getting energized from contacts with people. Which is the only interpretation that Jarno's "wrong" comment leaves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
I am a Socionics extrovert and I prefer to re-energize on my own. So?
If you have studied psychiatric diseases and personality disorders, you would know that the typical pre-psychotic schizophrenic personality traits are clearly similar to typical INTp or INTj traits. There is clearly a link between introversion and schizophrenia, and there is a clear correlation between being interested in philosophical systems and schizophrenia. And there is also a correlation between schizophrenia and acting like an emotionless robot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
So, what is your point? Nothing of this means that you are have schizophrenia just because you happens to be a type whose typical behaviours and attitudes are similar to those of a typical person with schizophrenia. But it means that there is probably a genetic link somehow. The types and the psychiatric diseases are genetically correlated with each other.
Yeah we know you are schizophrenic, why do you keep repeating us this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
The thing you don't seem to understand is that whether two "objects" (for example two types in two different systems, like the ILI and the INTP) are the same or not is not determined by which criteria are used in two systems to demarcate these objects. If they are or are not the same is determined by reality itself. They are the same object if they share the same structure, the same relevant biological characteristics. We can see that they both MBTT and Socionics are trying to describe the same objects, the same groups of people, and we can see that indepentently of any definitions or criteria they may, or may not, prefer to use as a method to spot those groups of people. We can see the types directly, even without any theory of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
16 types in Socionics or MBTI - or 32 subtypes - or 9 Enneagram types etc - are all approximations of reality.
If they described reality in very precise, unmistakable terms, we wouldn't have so many discussions on the precise type of individuals.
So, if in many cases it's not so obvious which precise type an individual is, then of course the precise criteria one uses to define the types become very important.
And if you go by the 4 dichotomies - since that is the subject of this thread - and you want to type someone by checking whether the person is extroverted or introverted, sensing or intuitive, logical or ethical, and rational or irrational - regardless of relationships, descriptions, etc - then of course the precise definitions of these dicthotomies are important.
So, again. According to the way Lytov described extroversion/introversion in MBTT, I am a MBTT introvert. According to how he described it for Socionics, I am an extrovert.
Surely there would be other ways of solving this dilemma, but the point we are discussing here is how accurate you type people if you go via dichotomies, and since MBTT and Socionics have different definitions of them, if using them you will arrive at different results.
Now some are arguing that the definitions aren't that different. Well, if you look at how Lytov described them - since he was quoted as authority here - then it's clear that some of them are indeed different.
As for Rick, he goes out of his way to point out that the differences in criteria is what leads to the 75% majority for sensors in MBTT, while he thinks that in Socionics it's more or less 50-50. So the two criteria can't be the same in his opinion.
Just something to be aware of when using them as reference -- look at what they have actually said - all of it. Not just the points that support one's position.
How could the very definition of something have nothing to do with what it is? :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
If the first theory says A = B and C = D, and the second theory says A = E and C = F, then even if both theories agree that everyone is either A or C does not mean the theories agree that B = E and D = F. A person could be B in one theory and F in the other.
but it does say that for some nonzero integer k that C²k>=Dk IFF (E²k/(CFk)<=F² or exactly one of C and F are both < 0, then E²k/F²<=|C+F|/|(c+f/c²-f²)|+cf(c+f) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
unless of course C=0, F=0, or C=F, in which case nothing whatsoever can be deduced.
Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Wrong. The type is determined by reality, the descriptions of the types are determined by the model(s). To have access to precise criteria and use them for typing people is only a method. But there are other methods than using exact criteria, and we use some of those methods all the time (for example V.I.). And the type is what it is anyway, regardless of which criteria we use to identify it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
No, no, no. That is CLEARLY wrong. You are an extravert if you are born an extravert, that is if your biological structure makes you an extravert, and nothing else is really relevant. Both MBTT and Socionics agree on this. The criteria you are referring to are -- again -- only parts of a method by which we may try to identify who is an extravert and who is an introvert. But you have your biological preference independently of the criteria for introversion and extraversion. You necessarily must be the same in both models, either an extravert or an introvert, and you can never have a different preference in those models.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
This is not about how accurate you type people if you go via dichotomies. This is about whether the four dichotomies refer to the same empirical phenomenon or not. And obviously they do. It is completely irrelevant if you will arrive at different typing results or not, if you try to type people by using those slightly different criteria as a typing tool. If you arrive at different results that only shows that you should not trust that typing method too much, or that you have made some kind of mistake in the typing process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
That conclusion of Rick's is logically independent of the question whether the criteria are the same or not. It is an empirical question how many people are sensors and how many people are intuitives. And the answer to that question can not be determined by looking at the criteria. That would be a big mistake, since we can see that the two models are talking about the same 16 groups of people. Both you and I think that Rick is wrong about 50-50 between sensors and intuitives, but we don't know for sure until we have access to more accurate typing methods. We might have to wait for future developments in neuro-biology to be really sure about the exact percentages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
No, at least not when it comes to typing people. The groups of people are primary here, both in Socionics and MBTT. The criteria for distinguishing between the groups of people (the types) come after the groups have been identified in the first place. The criteria don't define the types in Socionics. The types define which criteria we are correct in using.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
Yes, a red block is a red block. It is what it is. And a certain type -- for example that type (pointing to the group of people that in Socionics is called ESIs) -- is also what it is. Your example is misleading for the reasons explained above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
Yes, they really seem to do that. If they don't that would be a strange thing indeed. Maybe it is not impossible, but that has to be shown, and it is very unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
Incorrect. You use the same backward reasoning as so many others here. The groups come first, the criteria come after.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
How could the very definition of something have nothing to do with what it is? :?
Because the definition is a part of our language, whereas the thing we are trying to define -- the referent -- is not a part of our language. The referent (which in this case is the type) is a part of the external world. The type is what it is because it has a certain biological structure, not because we choose to define it a certain way. We observe the types. After we have observed them (and thus identified them) we try to formulate the relevant criteria, which hopefully can also be captured in some sort of definition. But the definition(s) might be misleading and unable to determine the correct type (referent) in every sinlge case. Please try not to confuse meaning (the definition) with reference (the type).Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
I like how Diana describes it.
The bottom line is that you're saying it is, in essence, the same chickens, same eggs, and same groups, which is where the disagreement lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
LOLZ this is the funniest thing I've read all day!
+3!