Lesson learnt: Everyone else is wrong. Phaedrus is always right.
INTp
sx/sp
No, that is not the correct conclusion. But it is inevitable that if two people disagree at least one of them must be wrong. In this case either those who disagree with me are wrong -- or I, and tcaudillg, and Smilex, and Lytov, and Ganin, and Filatova, and a bunch of other socionists are wrong.Originally Posted by Mea
NO NO NO NO NO IDIOT YOU CANT UNDERSTAND LOGICAL CONNECTIONS THATS WHY YOU THINK ITS LIKE THIS, GOD FUCKING DAMMIT YOUR BRAIN WOULD BE BETTER LEFT AS FOOD FOR DEAD DOGSNo, that is not the correct conclusion. But it is inevitable that if two people disagree at least one of them must be wrong. In this case either those who disagree with me are wrong -- or I, and tcaudillg, and Smilex, and Lytov, and Ganin, and Filatova, and a bunch of other socionists are wrong.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The entertainer has returned! What new tricks does the little monkey have in his arsenal? What has he learnt since last time?
Then these questions must follow:
1) Do you agree with tcaudilllg's "exertion type" or "dual-type" theory, or do you understand it (I freely admit that I don't) well enough to know whether it agrees or disagrees with your own views?
2) Do you agree with the very central point of Smilexian socionics - that types are changeable? Also, did he not disgree with you as to whether that Paul James description was a good representation of INTp?
3) Does Lytov really agree with you on ABCD = ABCd? It seems to me that he's rather wary of that and, as he himself has written, he does not think that J/P is perfectly equivalent to Rationality/Irrationality.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
PISS IN YOUR MOUTH WHILE KEEPING IT SHUT (SO THAT YOU DONT SPEAK YOUR CRAP)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I can't tell. I picked tcaudillg because at least he realizes what type I am according to Socionics.
No, I don't.
No, I don't think so, though I don't remember exactly. But he has explicitly stated that the INTJ descriptions I have used as examples describe typical LII behaviours and attitudes. And I also picked Smilex as an example of someone who understands the attitudes and behaviours of the types in the almost exact same way as I do. That he thinks that types are changeable does not change the fact that we put the same people in the same type groups.
He thinks that ABCD = ABCd holds true for some types, for example ISFj, ISTj, ISFp, and ISTp. He has also referred to the study that shows that the correspondence holds true more often than not for the other types as well, if you go by how socionists perceive MBTT type descriptions. He has also clearly accentuated the similarities between MBTT and Socionics more than the differences, he thinks that they should learn from each other, and he is aware that the criteria for rationality and irrationality are practically identical to he criteria for J and P in MBTT. And Lytov's understanding of the types seem to be very similar to my own, with only a few minor exceptions (like that he couldn't see clearly that David Keirsey is in fact an INTp).
Whether it is perfectly equivalent or not is irrelevant. He clearly sees them as much more similar than different, which of course every socionist must do, since they are.
And everything I say about the types is in agreement with what the socionic type descriptions say about the types. If I am wrong about the types, so are you Expat -- and every one of the people I mentioned in my post.
Actually, numbers vary from 0% to 100%. It depends of what you call "personality disorder".Well approximately 15% of the people has a personality disorder if I'm correctly informed.
Then we've got the autistic people, the schizophrenics the... etc etc.
I do think it's all pretty common.
It's pretty much like unemployment statistics : they say XXXXXXXX people are unemployed, but it pretty much depends on what "unemployed" means. In France, unemployment statistics vary roughly from 2 to 7 millions of people.
With such a reasoning you could never say how many blonds there are, how many poodles there are, how many houses there are. Everything depends on the definition. Well lets take the mostly used definition then.
Then the number is approximately 15%.
*reads*Because it is almost physically impossible for me to lie.Why can't you just admit you're wrong without damning an entire system for being wrong.There might be some truth in that. Maybe even a lot of it. And that's very interesting, because it raises the questions: What does it mean? What does it prove? I am still an ILI according to Socionics's own criteria seen from every conceivable angle (functions, intertype relations, type descriptions, Reinin dichotomies, temperaments, the four scales, etc.), but I have no personal interest in defending either that type or defending Socionics. So, if my way of thinking is inconsistent with being an ILI, that would prove that Socionics is a false theory -- and that would be very fascinating of course.
*is confused*
*thinks about it more*
*head explodes*
I don't know why you can be so sure about your type, but anyway...I am totally honest with you when I say that the objective state of the matter is that I can be no other type than ILI in Socionics. If I still must be a type with a leading logical function, then it probably proves that MBTT is correct after all, since I also can be no other type than INTP in MBTT. But what happens to the intertype relations then? That would be a mystery.
From the most basic rules, your dominant function is Introverted Thinking. It has to be. Back to the basics;
Introversion is taking one idea and poking and prodding at it in a hundered ways. Extraversion moves amongst several ideas.
Judgement is the process of reasoning, which means coming up with explainations and descriptions of why things happen.
Thinking is the inanimate version of judgment that removes oneself and other people/animals from the decision-making process.
So, your dominant function is a Thinking one because you get too caught in the reasoning/understanding of the system without much perception of either yourself or other people. You seem to try and "convince" yourself of your type through logical arguments, but at the same time having your head in the gutter. And it's Introverted because you are holding onto very old beliefs and trying to justify them further with more and more reason. You have been saying the same thing for at least a year now.
It seems a bit opportunistic, since you don't really know if you're talking of the same thing.I can't tell. I picked tcaudillg because at least he realizes what type I am according to Socionics.
1) So according to your previous post, one of you must be wrong on a very central point on socionics generally.No, I don't.
2) Since you think you're right, it must follow that you think that Smilingeyes is wrong on this very central point.
3) So what's the point of using him as a reference generally, since you do not have the same understanding of socionics?
Well I do (although I can't be bothered to dig it up now). He said it seemed to represent a Ni dominant person generally, but not that was a "typical INTp".No, I don't think so, though I don't remember exactly.
If he thinks that types are changeable - in fact, that whether someone is ENTj or ESTj (as in his case), for instance, is a consequence of varying life circunstances - then how can he possibly understand " the attitudes and behaviours of the types in the almost exact same way as" you do? His theory implies that, in effect, there isn't such a thing as an "INTj" in the sense as you understand it. There is such a thing as an "IJ" who happens to be in a "abstract Ti" situation, for example, or still in "concrete Ne" situation, which is what one would call an "INTj" - but is the same individual who, when in a "abstract Fi" situation, could be an "ISFj". Which totally contradicts your own stated views on types and biology.
How can you say then that "you put the same people in the same type groups"? You are stretching things just to be able to claim that Smilingeyes "agrees with you" - while at the same time thinking that his understanding of changing types is totally wrong. Is it not totally opportunistic?
"More often than not" is just barely correct, if indeed it is. Especially in the case of INTJ (admittedly the Keirsey version, but you also tend to say that his versions are essentially MBTT's, do you not), in fact the majority of the socionists thought that INTJ was NOT a LII but, more often, LIE or SLE. Other types were often muddled.He thinks that ABCD = ABCd holds true for some types, for example ISFj, ISTj, ISFp, and ISTp. He has also referred to the study that shows that the correspondence holds true more often than not for the other types as well, if you go by how socionists perceive MBTT type descriptions.
He never said "practically identical", on the contrary, he says that they are similar, but clearly not identical.
So, again, there is a lot of disagreement in your and Lytov's views; at the very least, even taking what you say at face value, to say that "ABCD = ABCd holds true for some types, for example ISFj, ISTj, ISFp, and ISTp" is by no means that same as saying that ABCD = ABCd necessarily, which is your own stated position.
In both Smilingeyes's and Lytov's cases (not necessarily tcaudilllg's, because I don't claim to understand his views) you are putting words in their mouths in order to say that your view is the "official socionics" one, when it's not.
I think "similar" and "perfectly equivalent" are very different things. I don't think anyone disagrees that, overall, the 16 MBTT types - as defined by the usual descriptions - are similar to the 16 socionics types. But that is not the same thing as saying that they are necessarily identical, in a 1:1 ratio, which is your position.Whether it is perfectly equivalent or not is irrelevant. He clearly sees them as much more similar than different, which of course every socionist must do, since they are.
Also, Lytov himself doesn't seem to see that as "irrelevant" at all, since he's careful to stress they they are not equivalent. So you're using Lytov to back you up, but essentially by saying that you know more about his positions than he does himself.
It can't be, because different descriptions are necessarily slightly different, and therefore even contradictory at points. So what you do is dismiss the bits in descriptions that do not fit your ABCD=ABCd conception, so that you can say "aha, they all fit". But it's the same phenomenon as I've pointed out above.
No, because my understanding of what essentially makes a type a type is different from yours. As Smilingeyes's is different from mine, and yours. So to lump everyone together with you is, again, sheer opportunism.
Maybe. I'll let tcaudillg answer that.It seems a bit opportunistic, since you don't really know if you're talking of the same thing.I can't tell. I picked tcaudillg because at least he realizes what type I am according to Socionics.
One of us must be wrong, but you are wrong in your belief that the point is central.1) So according to your previous post, one of you must be wrong on a very central point on socionics generally.No, I don't.
It does follow that I think that Smilingeyes is wrong on this not very central point.
I thought I had explained that. Smilingeyes and I have the same understanding of which people to put in the "type boxes" -- that seems very obvious as far as I can tell from reading what he has written on the subject. I agree with how he describes the types and their typical behaviours and attitudes, and we agree on how to analyze my type. All of that is intact regardless of whether types are changeable or not.
That statement is in perfect agreement with what I think about James's INTP description. I have never said that I think that it is a description of a typical INTp -- I have said that it is a description of an INTp. And the important thing to notice here is that Smilingeyes and I agree that James is in fact describing someone with dominant Ni, whereas Rick and FDG (those are the only ones I can recall right now having explicitly stated an opinion) claimed that it was more likely a description of an INTj (or at least was more INTj than INTp).Well I do (although I can't be bothered to dig it up now). He said it seemed to represent a Ni dominant person generally, but not that was a "typical INTp".No, I don't think so, though I don't remember exactly.
Smilingeyes and I (as far as I can tell) disagree on one important point only: whether types can change or not. When Smilingeyes decides to describe someone in a specific situation as an "INTj", we would agree on how to describe that INTj's behaviour and attitudes -- and that is the important thing here.If he thinks that types are changeable - in fact, that whether someone is ENTj or ESTj (as in his case), for instance, is a consequence of varying life circunstances - then how can he possibly understand " the attitudes and behaviours of the types in the almost exact same way as" you do? His theory implies that, in effect, there isn't such a thing as an "INTj" in the sense as you understand it. There is such a thing as an "IJ" who happens to be in a "abstract Ti" situation, for example, or still in "concrete Ne" situation, which is what one would call an "INTj" - but is the same individual who, when in a "abstract Fi" situation, could be an "ISFj". Which totally contradicts your own stated views on types and biology.
Wait, I just remember that he is also skeptical of V.I., which of course is understandable if you believe that types can change. One reason I don't think that types can change is V.I., which in my opinion is a strong argument for the hypothesis that your type is inborn and has a strong biological basis. So, you are right, in that sense our views contradict each other. But on how to describe the attitudes and behaviours of the types we agree, and that is what is at stake here.
No.
If we try to analyze the overall result of that study, we see that it is in agreement with my ABCD = ABCd thesis. There is no other explanation that makes sense, at least no one that I have seen presented. If the INTJ is a special case, that is also in agreement with our observations, since that seems to be the most debated type on this forum."More often than not" is just barely correct, if indeed it is. Especially in the case of INTJ (admittedly the Keirsey version, but you also tend to say that his versions are essentially MBTT's, do you not), in fact the majority of the socionists thought that INTJ was NOT a LII but, more often, LIE or SLE. Other types were often muddled.He thinks that ABCD = ABCd holds true for some types, for example ISFj, ISTj, ISFp, and ISTp. He has also referred to the study that shows that the correspondence holds true more often than not for the other types as well, if you go by how socionists perceive MBTT type descriptions.
I didn't say that Lytov has said that the criteria are "practically identical", I said that he is aware that they are practically identical. The four scales are extremely similar, and it is totally irrelevant and misleading to accentuate unimportant differences in phrases and/or definitions. They are, in fact, describing the same phenomenon. Don't insist on muddling things by talking about words.He never said "practically identical", on the contrary, he says that they are similar, but clearly not identical.
Wrong. There are no important disagreements between Lytov and me when it comes to describing attitudes and behaviours of the types. At least I haven't found any yet. And the necessity I have been talking about is of course not a logical necessity, if you by any chance would have thought that.
The types in the two models are necessarily the same in the same way that the morning star is identical to the planet Venus. But "Venus" is not defined in the same way as "the morning star"; the two word expressions don't have the same meaning, but they are referring to the same object. In the same way the two expressions "ILI" and "INTP" are also referring to the same object, despite the fact that they are defined differently.
They are identical in exactly the way I just described above. The only reason this looks like a problem to you and others (and perhaps even to Lytov) is because you confuse meaning and referents. You confuse words with objects.I think "similar" and "perfectly equivalent" are very different things. I don't think anyone disagrees that, overall, the 16 MBTT types - as defined by the usual descriptions - are similar to the 16 socionics types. But that is not the same thing as saying that they are necessarily identical, in a 1:1 ratio, which is your position.Whether it is perfectly equivalent or not is irrelevant. He clearly sees them as much more similar than different, which of course every socionist must do, since they are.
Also, Lytov himself doesn't seem to see that as "irrelevant" at all, since he's careful to stress they they are not equivalent. So you're using Lytov to back you up, but essentially by saying that you know more about his positions than he does himself.
I have always stressed the importance of seeing type descriptions overall. We must see what object (referent) they are describing, and in that process some minor bad wordings are rather unimportant. Even the MBTT type descriptions contain contradictory points. To see the object we have to go through a lot of type descriptions. And if we do that (as I have done), we see that they are talking about the same groups of people.It can't be, because different descriptions are necessarily slightly different, and therefore even contradictory at points. So what you do is dismiss the bits in descriptions that do not fit your ABCD=ABCd conception, so that you can say "aha, they all fit". But it's the same phenomenon as I've pointed out above.
Whether your understaning of what essentially makes a type a type is different from mine or not is irrelevant, if we agree on how to describe type types and which people to put in which "type box". And the fact is that we do agree on that. You can call it whatever you want. The fact remains that we are talking about the same objects.No, because my understanding of what essentially makes a type a type is different from yours. As Smilingeyes's is different from mine, and yours. So to lump everyone together with you is, again, sheer opportunism.
Wait, what? No it's not. Not at all.If we try to analyze the overall result of that study, we see that it is in agreement with my ABCD = ABCd thesis. There is no other explanation that makes sense, at least no one that I have seen presented. If the INTJ is a special case, that is also in agreement with our observations, since that seems to be the most debated type on this forum.]"More often than not" is just barely correct, if indeed it is. Especially in the case of INTJ (admittedly the Keirsey version, but you also tend to say that his versions are essentially MBTT's, do you not), in fact the majority of the socionists thought that INTJ was NOT a LII but, more often, LIE or SLE. Other types were often muddled.He thinks that ABCD = ABCd holds true for some types, for example ISFj, ISTj, ISFp, and ISTp. He has also referred to the study that shows that the correspondence holds true more often than not for the other types as well, if you go by how socionists perceive MBTT type descriptions.
You just lost.
It does not contradict the thesis, and can you come up with a better hypothesis about the relations between MBTT and Socionics? Maybe you haven't understood what the thesis is about and/or what those socionists were trying to do. Read what I said about meaning and referents one more time in that case.
It seems that the new owner of Lytov's old site has removed the results of that study, but I have them here:It does not contradict the thesis
This one is the result of socionists being handed out MBTT-like descriptions (I do believe he wrote they were more like Keirsey's), and asking socionists in a Kiev meeting to type the descriptions according to socionics.
INTJ is simply the most extreme case, it's not a "special" case.
Look at this:
- of 136 people who commented on the ESTP description, 62 - nearly half - said that that was a SEE; and only 11 thought that it was an ESTP.
- of 134 who commented on the ESFP description, 42 said that it was an IEE, and 38 said that it was an ESE - and only 18 saying that it was a SEE.
- of the 137 comments on the ENFP description, a whopping 61 thought it was an EIE, while only 36 thought it was an IEE.
I won't be so specific in the numbers of the others (you all can count), but other remarkable results were:
- the nearly 50% split between IEI and EII for both INFP and INFJ
- the "broken down" results for ESFJ, with high scores in SEI, LSE, ESE, and ESI
- similar for ENFJ, with again more people (32) thinking that it was an IEE than the 20 who voted for EIE.
The only types for which there was a very clear majority in favor of ABCD=ABCd were SEI, ISTP, and ENTP - and even there, there were "dissidents". Others that had a preference, but not a majority, were ISFJ and ISTJ.
How can you then say that it does not contradict the ABCD=ABCd thesis, and claim that Lytov's reservations are just a matter of "words" and "irrelevant"?
On the contrary. That became clear in the XoX type thread. It became clear to me - as it had already been my impression previously, and since then it has only been confirmed - that there is no way that XoX can be an ILI, if his online persona and what he tells about himself truly represents him, for the simple reason that an ILI can't have a Fe>Fi preference, because that would totally mess up intertype relationships with ESE and SEE (and all others). And XoX's Fe preference is blatantly obvious.
If you still think that XoX can be an ILI despite that - or, worse, you don't even see why there is a problem with that - then we are already in deep disagreement as to what fundamentally makes someone fit into one of your boxes.
Expat just expained why you were wrong, so... for the hypothesis? I guess you could say there is little common ground.It does not contradict the thesis, and can you come up with a better hypothesis about the relations between MBTT and Socionics? Maybe you haven't understood what the thesis is about and/or what those socionists were trying to do. Read what I said about meaning and referents one more time in that case.
The overall result of that study is that we can assume that the type descriptions were badly written and/or that most of the socionists were incometent as type descriptions analysts.
The extraverted types are no problem, because both models agree on the functions ordering in the ego block, and they agree on the criteria in the four scales. But there is a problem with the MBTT descriptions since they accentuate the similarities much more than the differences between the types. That results in, for example, an ESFP and an ESFJ looking rather similar at the surface level. But those two types are clearly distinguishable in Keirsey's model (and in MBTT) if we also look at the temperaments. Then we see that an ESFJ is totally identical to an ESE, and that there is no way that they do not correspond to each other. And it's the same with the ESFP, which belongs to the Artisans in Keirsey's model and is without doubt described as having an EP temperament. The ESTP is of course also identical to the SLE, since there is no disagreement on how to distinguish logical types from ethical types.
The nearly 50 % split between IEI and EII is to be expected, since the phenomenon is similar to the confusion between LIIs and ILIs. I have shown in one of my posts that it is just as obvious that Keirsey's INFP description is about a person with dominant
As for the ISTJ and ISFJ descriptions, they are so ridiculously identical to LSIs and ESIs respectively that they are not even worth discussing. That is even more obvious in Keirsey's model, since both LSIs and ESIs are perfect Guardians according to Keirsey's criteria, and similarly SLIs and SEIs are (almost) perfect Artisans.
If anyone of you have a better explanation for all this, I am interested in hearing about it. But when you really compare the type descriptions in all three models, the result is almost inevitable, and it seems obvious that it must be what I have said that it is.
That is totally irrelevant, since we would agree on which type XoX is if we both met him in person and had a chance to talk to him. It is a big mistake to define once and for all what an ILI really is, because a true ILI is a person that belongs to that group of people. And that group of people is identical to the group of people into which both you and I would put all the real life "ILIs" that we have correctly typed as such. Which methods or which criteria we use in that typing process is totally irrelevant.
Now, please think deeply about what I just wrote. You still confuse word meanings with the objects that those meanings refer to. An ILI is that object -- whatever the true nature of that object is. So, it is irrelevant how you try to define the meaning of the word "ILI". We are still talking about the same -- language and model independent -- objects.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
QFT
I am not supporting Phaedrus in this, as I do think that he is wrong, but just because someone does something for a living does not necessarily mean that they do it well. It merely means that they can presumably, and are expected to, do it better than those who do not do it for a living.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
No one's arguing whether or not these people do it well. BUT they represent the common views of the types in their respective fields. Right or wrong, those are the common views. Phaedrus seems to say, "MBTI=socionics" blah blah blah, and then when socionics people read the MBTI descriptions, they put types on those descriptions that clearly show those said types =/= the same type in socionics. The first part of his last post was Phaedrus basically saying, "Yeah, they don't line up, like I thought they would, so I'll just say that someone must of messed up, leaving me to still be right". This really isn't even an exageration, that's what he was saying. And it's a joke.
If you want you could say, "Kiersey is wrong about...", or "Lytov has a poor definition of..." which is fine. But to say that they EQUAL each other, and support them (which Phaedrus seems to do) is just... I don't even know anymore. Ridiculus.
Rocky, you are too kind in your assessment. I think that at this point, Phaedrus may have gone past the point of being merely ridiculous.No one's arguing whether or not these people do it well. BUT they represent the common views of the types in their respective fields. Right or wrong, those are the common views. Phaedrus seems to say, "MBTI=socionics" blah blah blah, and then when socionics people read the MBTI descriptions, they put types on those descriptions that clearly show those said types =/= the same type in socionics. The first part of his last post was Phaedrus basically saying, "Yeah, they don't line up, like I thought they would, so I'll just say that someone must of messed up, leaving me to still be right". This really isn't even an exageration, that's what he was saying. And it's a joke.
If you want you could say, "Kiersey is wrong about...", or "Lytov has a poor definition of..." which is fine. But to say that they EQUAL each other, and support them (which Phaedrus seems to do) is just... I don't even know anymore. Ridiculus.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Rocky, you are too kind in your assessment. I think that at this point, Phaedrus may have gone past the point of being merely ridiculous.No one's arguing whether or not these people do it well. BUT they represent the common views of the types in their respective fields. Right or wrong, those are the common views. Phaedrus seems to say, "MBTI=socionics" blah blah blah, and then when socionics people read the MBTI descriptions, they put types on those descriptions that clearly show those said types =/= the same type in socionics. The first part of his last post was Phaedrus basically saying, "Yeah, they don't line up, like I thought they would, so I'll just say that someone must of messed up, leaving me to still be right". This really isn't even an exageration, that's what he was saying. And it's a joke.
If you want you could say, "Kiersey is wrong about...", or "Lytov has a poor definition of..." which is fine. But to say that they EQUAL each other, and support them (which Phaedrus seems to do) is just... I don't even know anymore. Ridiculus.
Rocky (and others?), you don't seem to get it. You don't seem to understand what this is all about. You put enormous emphasis on a study that is essentially irrelevant. The fact that they disagreed quite a lot is the most significant factor to consider. The nicest thing we can say about that is that many of them were probably unfamiliar with such type descriptions and were not at their best when reading them. But it is more likely that they were bad at analyzing type descriptions in general. I would say that most of them were clearly incompetent -- that is the rather obvious conclusion we should draw if we look at the result of that study.
But why should any of this matter? The study was about type descriptions -- not about the types themselves. And if you don't compare a lot of type descriptions, you don't get a reliable result. I have compared a lot of them, and I seem to be about the only person in the world at the moment who understands type descriptions correctly.
You make it very easy for yourself. What about recognizing that you also said this:
I'd suggest you be more careful about making such statements about studies you either haven't read or have forgotten about.
How does that change the plain fact that those socionists did not think that ESTP descriptions were obviously identical to SLE? Or is your argument simply that everyone is incompetent? Except you?
Lytov did not seem to think so, so he must be incompetent as well. So the least you can do is not to use people you see as incompetent as reference when it suits you. At the very least, it is ungentlemanly.
The better explanation is simply that, if you go by type descriptions - your preferred method - it is not clear at all that ABCD=ABCd. Unless you use arguments such as (1) everyone's incompetent or (2) the descriptions are badly written.The nearly 50 % split between IEI and EII is to be expected, since the phenomenon is similar to the confusion between LIIs and ILIs. I have shown in one of my posts that it is just as obvious that Keirsey's INFP description is about a person with dominant
As for the ISTJ and ISFJ descriptions, they are so ridiculously identical to LSIs and ESIs respectively that they are not even worth discussing. That is even more obvious in Keirsey's model, since both LSIs and ESIs are perfect Guardians according to Keirsey's criteria, and similarly SLIs and SEIs are (almost) perfect Artisans.
If anyone of you have a better explanation for all this, I am interested in hearing about it. But when you really compare the type descriptions in all three models, the result is almost inevitable, and it seems obvious that it must be what I have said that it is.
I'm astonished that you make such a claim. How can you know? I am not sure at all of this, since you did not even seem to be able to acknowledge my arguments for saying that XoX couldn't be ILI.
If you want to check whether your criteria for typing really correspond to mine or others, you can join us in Duesseldorf in December (and don't worry - it's not about challenging each other's types).
In Socionics, an ILI is defined "once and for all" as someone who can't preferover
, because then they wouldn't have
as conflictor.
You do include intertype relationships in your criteria, so how can you say that the above is "totally irrelevant"? If someone prefers
As for "that group of people": To which group of people an individual belongs to depends, yes, on how you define each group of people. And that definition depends, yes, on the typing criteria.
I don't see how that answers any of the points above.
You did not think it was irrelevant when you thought it supported your thesis, and if it did, you'd be quoting it all the time - then it wouldn't be "irrelevant" at all.
Another obvious conclusion is that Keirsey/MBTT descriptions do not present a consistent portrait of Socionics types when analyzed via functions. Those typings were the socionists' best guesses -- it is not clear at all that they thought they were good portraits of the types they were proposing.
If you derive your understanding of the types from type descriptions, as you say you do, then a study about type descriptions is also relevant for the types themselves.
As for your being "about the only person in the world at the moment who understands type descriptions correctly" -- that's possible. I suppose you won't even consider the possibility that you're the one who's wrong?
This is totally circular thinking.
- ILI is a person who belongs to a group of people
- that group of people is identical to the group of people we'd put the correctly typed ILIs
But how do you know that those ILIs have been "correctly typed" in the first place? You have to have some criteria to begin with, otherwise you can't even begin to form the group. And if my criteria differ from yours, then we won't form the group with exactly the same people.
This is so obvious, it's embarrassing for me to have to say it.
Jesus, the more you get your ass nailed, the deeper you dig yourself into this web of inconsistencies and incoherencies. Just stop embaressing yourself; Expat is going to continue nailing your ass to the wall, and if he gets tired, I'm going to pick up the slack. Or Fabie.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Another of your precious insinuations ... The study is of course in agreement with my thesis, since it in no way contradicts it.
You can be incompetent in one respect without being incompetent in others. I quote people when I think that they are right about something, and I quote Lytov also because many people on this forum seem to have respect for his opinions. Lytov's opinions are most often in agreement with my own, and I have much respect for them, but he also had this very strange idea that David Keirsey would most likely be an SLE in Socionics. And that ideas is most certainly completely false.
Lytov did not seem to think so, so he must be incompetent as well. So the least you can do is not to use people you see as incompetent as reference when it suits you. At the very least, it is ungentlemanly.
That those socionists didn't see that ESTP = SLE is easily explained by the fact that they are not used to read MBTT or Keirsey type descriptions. They are not used to compare the models in the way Lytov and I have done. And they were simply incompetent in that particular respect.
It is not clear to you, because you haven't compared the type descriptions in depth. If you had, you would agree with me. But some of the type descriptions are rather poorly written, you are right about that.
And I am astonished that you never get it, that you don't understand what I am saying on this point. How can I express myself more clearly than I already have? Your arguments for saying that XoX couldn't be ILI are irrelevant. And it is also irrelevant if our criteria for typing correspond or not. I know that we are talking about the same set of objects when we use the expression "ILI" because I have read what you have said about "ILIs" on this forum. I have also read what you have said about the other types, and from that I can tell for sure that everything suggests that we have the same groups of people in mind. And that has nothing to do with definitions or criteria.
If you want to check whether your criteria for typing really correspond to mine or others, you can join us in Duesseldorf in December (and don't worry - it's not about challenging each other's types).
NO. The definitions and the typing criteria depend on how we have grouped the individuals in the first place. First we identify the groups (the types), then we try to come up with definitions, explanations, and criteria for how to identify new examples of each group in the future, based on what we find out about each type.In Socionics, an ILI is defined "once and for all" as someone who can't prefer
You do include intertype relationships in your criteria, so how can you say that the above is "totally irrelevant"? If someone prefers
As for "that group of people": To which group of people an individual belongs to depends, yes, on how you define each group of people. And that definition depends, yes, on the typing criteria.
Holy shit.
Phaedrus, have you ever heard of something called a logical fallacy?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I was trying to explain the theory of causal reference in a perhaps too simple way. You could try this instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_theory_of_referenceThis is totally circular thinking.
We notice similarities and differences between individuals, and they form a general pattern that can be described as types. We don't have to be aware of which criteria we use to identify the types correctly. Neither do we have to be able to explain the physics behind our ability to use a bicycle in order to use it. The types have already been identified a long time ago. And there are many ways to identify them without knowing the theory behind it. We have two theoretically incompatible theories -- MBTT and Socionics -- and yet they describe the same objective reality. And they can do it because they see the patterns (the types) before they begin to talk about functions and other theoretical explanations of what they can both observe.
You are not an INTp, nor are you an INTj, because even INTjs with all of their emphasis onare capable of acknowledging when the facts are stacked against them. While you clearly have a
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I almost feel embarrased replying to another one of your posts. But, oh well.
How can you first identify groups without definitions? HOW ARE YOU GROUPING THESE PEOPLE?!?!?! Just hunches? Are you saying, "Well, I think these people form a group". But a group of WHAT? You can't have a group without criteria.
You're just embarrasing yourself at this point.
how about you all just say he's right and then go out for coffee and not invite him? i'm pretty sure this is a more effective solution to this problem than the current course of action.
entp-ti 6w7
Without criteria, how do you know where to draw the line when noticing similarities and differences?
When you type people - by VI or however - you are also using criteria, whether you are aware of them or not.
In fact, that's the reason why there are generally disagreements on typing - because people disagree on which criteria to use.
That's a nonsensical analogy. The difference is that it's self-evident whether you can ride a bicycle with a minimum of skill or not - namely, whether you ride on or fall on your face. When typing, it's not self-evident at all that you're typing correctly. Just look at Diocklecian. It's not clear at all, to him, that he's fallen on his face many times.
The missing key word is :
"And there are many ways to identify them CORRECTLY without knowing the theory behind it".
You are mixing up "theory" with "criteria". The use of type descriptions is also a set of criteria. You use VI to type. That's also a set of criteria, even if difficult to put on paper.
The problem with this line:
The same "objective reality" is that there are different types of people. Fine. But the precise groupings - the precise points where to draw the line - are not preset. They have to be defined.We have two theoretically incompatible theories -- MBTT and Socionics -- and yet they describe the same objective reality. And they can do it because they see the patterns (the types)
Ok. As you said:
"First we identify the groups (the types)"
And -- how do you do that without some definitions in the first place?
How have you "grouped the individuals in the first place" without an idea of whom you'd call an ILI and who you wouldn't?
However you call it, if you do have an idea, you are using criteria and definitions. And there may be disagreement on them, and so on how you group the individuals.
What I'm saying, is elementary logic -- yet all you can do is re-state your own view and say that we "don't get it".
You can argue, of course, that the study does not disprove your thesis, since it's only one study, we don't know the quality of the descriptions used, nor the qualifications of those people in socionics, etc.Another of your precious insinuations ... The study is of course in agreement with my thesis, since it in no way contradicts it.
But how can you say that it is in agreement with your thesis and that it no way contradicts it? There is no way to justifiy this interpretation at all. It is simply absurd.
This is definitely up there as one of the most blatant logical pwnages that has ever occurred on this forum.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Many INTjs are probably capable of that. But I know some that are not.You are not an INTp, nor are you an INTj, because even INTjs with all of their emphasis on
No, clearly not. You are making the same mistake as many others on this forum when you don't regognize the difference between the accepting-While you clearly have a
In that case I am not a very good thinking type.
Correct observations and conclusions, Logos. And since you are able to see that I am not a rational type and most likelyYour leading function is obviously not rational as you are quite irrational in both the Socionics and the conventional meaning of the words. The "Where did he get that crap?" reaction that most people get from reading your posts may indicate a leading
You of course also realize that you are now contradicting Rocky's opinion on my type, and that one of you must be wrong.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote