The 4 dichotomies according to Socionics and MBTI

ahahaha

I didn't see that till you pointed it out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

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.

---

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.

---

But the point is that we were talking about using those tests as evidence of someone's Socionics type, and how the 4 dichotomies are supposed to be very similar in both systems. And you quoted Lytov and Rick to say that they are more similar than different. But according to how Lytov described the common MBTT definition of Introversion/Extraversion (unless you'll now say that he is wrong in that), I come out as Introvert. I am not saying at all that I am an Introvert. I am referring to that precise definition.

So that definition is clearly wrong, and therefore that method is wrong, and therefore to say that an INTJ as per MBTI tests is most likely a LII is questionable. Which is how this precise discussion started in that typing thread before I splitted it.

Your point about the biological preference is not addressing the simple problem I am mentioning, which is about the practical use of such tests.

Now, one could argue that I - a Socionics extravert who tests as Introvert by that precise (and very common) definition - (1) am an exception, (2) do not know how to answer the test properly, (3) whatever. Fine. But I'd rather say that such discrepancies will be too common to be simply dismissed as irrelevant, and so - again - one must be careful to simply take such test results as direct evidence of someone's Socionics type.

I agree that someone who tests as INTJ will not be likely to be a SEE or SEI or some other types, to that extent they are useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

But the point is that we were talking about using those tests as evidence of someone's Socionics type, and how the 4 dichotomies are supposed to be very similar in both systems. And you quoted Lytov and Rick to say that they are more similar than different. But according to how Lytov described the common MBTT definition of Introversion/Extraversion (unless you'll now say that he is wrong in that), I come out as Introvert. I am not saying at all that I am an Introvert. I am referring to that precise definition.

---

Let's have a look at that quote from Lytov again:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lytov

In our colloquial language “extravert” means an open, sociable, communicable person, while “introvert” means a reserved, reticent, shy one. Such definition was given to these words not by Jung, but by Hans Jurgen Eysenck, who borrowed these words from Jung's works. According to Myers &Briggs, these words have just the same meaning. Keirsey somewhat changed his views on them: initially, in his test extroversion was associated with communicability and activity, but in its last version – only with communicability.

However, socionics uses somewhat different definitions of these words.

We just need to repeat what we have already said: if we accept the definition according to Myers and Keirsey, such definition will strongly correlate with two other criteria, sensation/intuition and feeling/thinking. The extravert according to Myers and Keirsey will be a little bit more sensory than intuitive, and a little bit more feeling than thinking. And the introvert according to Myers and Keirsey will be, on the contrary, more intuitive than sensory, and more thinking than feeling.

In socionics, extroversion/introversion is associated with INITIATIVE. Extraverts tend to extend their activity, to be anxious whether they did all the could, or can do something more; introverts, on the contrary, rather want to avoid redundancy.

---

If you interpret Lytov that literally, then of course he is wrong, since Introversion/Extraversion is not defined in terms of whether you are a sociable and communicable person or if you are a reserved, reticent, and shy person. Those traits are associated with extraversion and introversion, and they are associated with some test questions, but that is not how they are defined in MBTT. They are defined and explained in pretty much the same way they are defined in Socionics and by Jung. And it is true of both the socionic types and the MBTT types that Introversion/Extraversion is correlated with those traits mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

So that definition is clearly wrong, and therefore that method is wrong, and therefore to say that an INTJ as per MBTI tests is most likely a LII is questionable. Which is how this precise discussion started in that typing thread before I splitted it.

---

We must understand that it is not a definition, and you will see that I am right if you look at relevant MBTT material. If we would try to predict which result a typical socionic INTj would get on an MBTI test and we knew nothing special about that INTj other than his type, we should put our money on INTJ, because that is the most likely test result for a typical INTj.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Now, one could argue that I - a Socionics extravert who tests as Introvert by that precise (and very common) definition - (1) am an exception, (2) do not know how to answer the test properly, (3) whatever.

---

Just as in Socionics your test result is not the final word on your type. The next step is to read and compare with the type descriptions, and if you understand those type descriptions correctly you would realize that you are an ENTJ in MBTT. Since the type descriptions are not that well-defined, you will have to read more than one such description, but you have already admitted that you can see yourself as an ENTJ in Keirsey's model, and Keirsey's ENTJ is clearly most similar to an ENTJ in MBTT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If you interpret Lytov that literally, then of course he is wrong, since Introversion/Extraversion is not defined in terms of whether you are a sociable and communicable person or if you are a reserved, reticent, and shy person. Those traits are associated with extraversion and introversion, and they are associated with some test questions, but that is not how they are defined in MBTT. They are defined and explained in pretty much the same way they are defined in Socionics and by Jung. And it is true of both the socionic types and the MBTT types that Introversion/Extraversion is correlated with those traits mentioned.

---

But in most available MBTI tests, those traits are such a strong part of the E/I scale - if not the only part - as to make it almost a definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

We must understand that it is not a definition, and you will see that I am right if you look at relevant MBTT material.

---

Fine, but I am addressing the issue of the usefulness of tests. It's all well and good to say that some better MBTT material have better definitions, but for practical purposes, whenever someone shows up here saying that they are INTJ or whatever, it was most often not due to such material, but to the more commonly available tests and descriptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Just as in Socionics your test result is not the final word on your type. The next step is to read and compare with the type descriptions, and if you understand those type descriptions correctly you would realize that you are an ENTJ in MBTT. Since the type descriptions are not that well-defined, you will have to read more than one such description, but you have already admitted that you can see yourself as an ENTJ in Keirsey's model, and Keirsey's ENTJ is clearly most similar to an ENTJ in MBTT.

---

Perhaps but that's not the point as far as I am concerned, here. I am referring to the usefulness of those 4 dichotomies and their supposed identity or near-identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If we would try to predict which result a typical socionic INTj would get on an MBTI test and we knew nothing special about that INTj other than his type, we should put our money on INTJ, because that is the most likely test result for a typical INTj.

---

But other types can also test as INTJ, and they do. So if someone shows up and says, "I test as INTJ in online MBTI" it seems to me that you'd say "that is good evidence that you are LII". I prefer to say, "that is good evidence that you are not SEE, SEI, ESE, EIE and a couple of others".

Also, what I really disagree with, and I see it happening often - regardless of what "better MBTT material" says - is this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diana

Yes, according to MBTI, but NOT according to socionics. A socionics extrovert could just as easily answer that they'd want to be alone.

---

That's simply wrong.

---

So, it seems to me that Jarno thinks that Socionics extraversion = not wanting to be alone to re-energize, and that's what's "simply wrong". So even if that's not what "better" MBTT says, it's a common enough misconception to lead to mistypings.

I think I'll stay out of this one... the whole conversation seems to be going round in circles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If you interpret Lytov that literally, then of course he is wrong, since Introversion/Extraversion is not defined in terms of whether you are a sociable and communicable person or if you are a reserved, reticent, and shy person. Those traits are associated with extraversion and introversion, and they are associated with some test questions, but that is not how they are defined in MBTT. They are defined and explained in pretty much the same way they are defined in Socionics and by Jung. And it is true of both the socionic types and the MBTT types that Introversion/Extraversion is correlated with those traits mentioned.

---

But in most available MBTI tests, those traits are such a strong part of the E/I scale - if not the only part - as to make it almost a definition.

---

Since when have the MBTI tests become a part of MBTT? The MBTI tests is the method, not the theory. Introversion/Extraversion is of course not defined by the test. There is no relevant difference between how Introversion/Extraversion is understood in MBTT and in Socionics. None at all. Both theories understand this phenomenon in a way that goes back to Jung, and people should immediately stop confusing MBTI tests with the Myers-Briggs Type Theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Fine, but I am addressing the issue of the usefulness of tests. It's all well and good to say that some better MBTT material have better definitions, but for practical purposes, whenever someone shows up here saying that they are INTJ or whatever, it was most often not due to such material, but to the more commonly available tests and descriptions.

---

You are probably right about that, but why should we believe that people are right about their MBTT types in that case? If they don't understand MBTT we should not trust what they say about their type in MBTT. You do some test on the Internet and immediately decide what type you are in MBTT -- how ridiculous is that? My point (and probably Jarno's too) is that MBTI tests are probably just as accurate as most socionic tests if we are interested in finding someone's socionic type. Every MBTI test gives us a strong indication of which socionic type that person is, and of course a socionic test gives us a strong indication of that person's MBTT type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

I am referring to the usefulness of those 4 dichotomies and their supposed identity or near-identity.

---

They are as useful in MBTT as they are in Socionics. Every person should identify with all of them, if they think that they have found which socionic type they are. If you think that you are an ESFj, you must identify with E, S, F, and J, as those dichotomies are explained in Socionics. If you don't, you are most likely not an ESFj. And that goes for every socionic type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If we would try to predict which result a typical socionic INTj would get on an MBTI test and we knew nothing special about that INTj other than his type, we should put our money on INTJ, because that is the most likely test result for a typical INTj.

---

But other types can also test as INTJ, and they do. So if someone shows up and says, "I test as INTJ in online MBTI" it seems to me that you'd say "that is good evidence that you are LII". I prefer to say, "that is good evidence that you are not SEE, SEI, ESE, EIE and a couple of others".

---

We don't disagree on this. Every test result is only an indication of your correct type. But if you have taken many tests on different occasions, that is stronger evidence than one single test result, and if you also strongly identify with I, N, T, and J in the four dichotomies, that is even stronger evidence. But none of that is conclusive evidence. As always, every relevant piece in the puzzle must fit. So, you should identify with the four scales, you should test as your type, you should identify with the type descriptions, you should look like your type on V.I., your intertype relations should make sense, you must have the temperament of your type, etc. When almost everything fits when you analyze your suggested type from as many different perspectives as possible, then you have a strong case. Then you have reason to believe that you know which type you are.