How often do MBTI types correlate with Socionic Types?

[Joy]

To deliberatly attribute a quote to a person that the person has never written, knowing perfectly well that it is an incorrect quote is, in my opinion, even worse and more morally wrong than harassing people in other ways that some persons on this forum has been accused, correctly or incorrectly, of doing. Joy has now joined the group of a few people that has been guilty of posting false, misleading, and incorrect quotes. I don't know whether they have been doing it to others than me, but it is nevertheless an utterly objectionable act of misconduct, that should be stopped immediately.

It's obvious that you never said those exact words.

[Ezra]

I assume it happens all the time. Of course you can't go from TeNi to SeTi. But whose to say you have such an awesome self-understanding? And further more, how can you know everyone who uses the function, in any camp, fully understands Jung's descriptions? Do you understand them? If you did, then why would you rely on faulty assumptions such as ENTJ-LIE? You wouldn't have to if you were fully aware of all your functions.

Why do you assume that you understand me better than I do, when you don't actually know me? You know about 10% of my whole - what I write on here i.e. the way I write; the way I conduct myself. And you act like you have full access to every aspect of me. I do. Which is why I can afford to make founded claims about my type.

Just because you have studied a part of my behaviour does not mean you can induce that I am a type I know I'm not.

Anyway, there's a very good description on www.bestfittype.com concerning ENTJ and ESTP mistypes.

[Rocky]

I assume it happens all the time. Of course you can't go from TeNi to SeTi. But whose to say you have such an awesome self-understanding? And further more, how can you know everyone who uses the function, in any camp, fully understands Jung's descriptions? Do you understand them? If you did, then why would you rely on faulty assumptions such as ENTJ-LIE? You wouldn't have to if you were fully aware of all your functions.

Why do you assume that you understand me better than I do, when you don't actually know me? You know about 10% of my whole - what I write on here i.e. the way I write; the way I conduct myself. And you act like you have full access to every aspect of me. I do. Which is why I can afford to make founded claims about my type.

Just because you have studied a part of my behaviour does not mean you can induce that I am a type I know I'm not.

Anyway, there's a very good description on www.bestfittype.com concerning ENTJ and ESTP mistypes.

I never claimed to know your type. I just said people in general are incompetant with this sort of thing.

[Phaedrus]

Although the quoted was fabricated, I believed it was something you wrote at first since you've said very similar sounding things in the past. It's not like she made something up that was so far out there; you've pretty much said that anyway.

Quotes should be 100 % correct. It is irrelevant whether I have said something similar or not. If you put words in the form of a quote they must be correct, even though unintentional typos are excusable. There is no excuse for deliberately misquoting someone.

It's obvious that you never said those exact words.

It is not obvious to someone who is new to the forum, it is not obvious to those who havent' followed the debate, and it might not be obvious to anyone in two years from now, if they accidentally come across that quote. Quotes must be correct. Period.

If you don't do it again, I will let it pass.

[Phaedrus]

I think he's referring to "reality", if you believe your point of view to be a correct representation of reality, then it must be correct from every POV.

Exactly.

[Slacker]

OMG look at all that and

[FDG]

I think he's referring to "reality", if you believe your point of view to be a correct representation of reality, then it must be correct from every POV.

Exactly.

Reply to my other post too please

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, I agree with you if and only if:

Given test result ENTJ -> LIE
But Given ENTJ description -> !LIE

Basically, if you limit the transition from MBTI test to socionics description, I might agree with you that there is a good prediction. If you take into account comparison of descriptions, not at all - look by yourself.

There is a good prediction that someone who gets the test result ENTJ is an ENTj. The type descriptions can be more or less similar or different depending on the author. But I still claim that since the criteria for the four scales are, for all practical purposes, identical in Socionics and MBTT the group of people that are called ENTJs in MBTT must consist predominantly of ENTjs. And another strong reason for that is that many things in the MBTT type descriptions are taken from observations of people who have actually got the test result "ENTJ" on MBTI tests.

Both systems use similar tests, and if not both the Socionics and the MBTI tests are extremely inaccurate and give us incorrect results more often than not, then most people who get the result "ENTJ" are ENTjs, and a consequence of that is that all correctly identified ENTJs are ENTjs. If you don't think that the the type descriptions are clear enough to establish that correlation, there is something wrong with the type descriptions -- not with the types themselves.

Also, you should always refer to statistical outcomes, not identities. Meaning that not every person that tests as ENTJ is going to be ENTj, and not necessarily for lack of self-knowledge but also for ambiguity of tests, challenging life situations, etc

Of course not everyone that tests as ENTJ is an ENTj, and not everyone that tests as ENTJ is an ENTJ either. I don't know whether Ezra is really an ENTJ or not. I have only said that if he is definitely (= correctly typed as) ENTJ, then he is also an ENTj.

[Enters Laughing]

I think he's referring to "reality", if you believe your point of view to be a correct representation of reality, then it must be correct from every POV.

Exactly.

That's only if you consider your POV to be an undeniable fact, rather than your own point of view.

[Mea]

I think he's referring to "reality", if you believe your point of view to be a correct representation of reality, then it must be correct from every POV.

Exactly.

That's only if you consider your POV to be an undeniable fact, rather than your own point of view.

Yes. A POV doesn't have to mean it's a fact/reality to EVERYONE. It may be the truth to you, or you recognise it as a fact, but it does not necessarily mean it is to someone else.

[Phaedrus]

I think he's referring to "reality", if you believe your point of view to be a correct representation of reality, then it must be correct from every POV.

Exactly.

That's only if you consider your POV to be an undeniable fact, rather than your own point of view.

No. If your point of view is a correct representation of reality, then it is true. If something is an undeniable fact, it is not only something that you think is true, and also is true -- it is also something that you know is true. You can have a true belief without knowing that it is a true belief. But you can't have a belief without thinking that it is true.

[Phaedrus]

A POV doesn't have to mean it's a fact/reality to EVERYONE.

Correct. People have different beliefs. What one person believes to be true another person might think is false. That is no problem, since beliefs are not the same thing as true beliefs. Some beliefs are true, and some beliefs are false. But a POV is not the same thing as a fact either.

It may be the truth to you, or you recognise it as a fact, but it does not necessarily mean it is to someone else.

You have misunderstood the concepts "truth" and "fact". A fact is a fact, and whether you or anyone else recognizes it as a fact or not is irrelevant. If it really is a fact, it is a fact independently of anyone's point of view. And if a statement (a proposition) really is true, then it is always true independently of anyone's point of view, and independently of whether the truth is recognized or accepted as a truth or not. What is true and what is false is not decided in a poll or in a democratic process. Truth is eternal and independent of everyone's point of view. It exists (as do facts) no matter what we decide to think about it.

[Enters Laughing]

I don't consider my POVs to be correct - I consider them to be my POV. My POV is only conditionally correct, and I recognise that I may never be certain that my POV is correct. I know that something isn't correct merely because I think it is correct.

[Phaedrus]

I don't consider my POVs to be correct - I consider them to be my POV.

Is there an important difference in meaning between "POV" and "belief" to you? If so, could you explain that difference? I am talking about beliefs here, and you are clearly contradicting yourself if you say that:

1. You have the belief that p.
2. You don't believe that your belief that p is correct.

My POV is only conditionally correct, and I recognise that I may never be certain that my POV is correct.

We have always agreed on the fact that we may never be certain that our POVs are correct. But again, that is to talk about knowledge -- not truth.

I know that something isn't correct merely because I think it is correct.

[Slacker]

The fact that you think something is The Truth doesn't make it so. You could be wrong, no matter how right you think you are. No one is infallible.

[Joy]

No one can absolutely positively KNOW something. And there's no such thing as an absolute PROOF of anything, either. I seriously do not understand how anyone could think otherwise. It's so ridiculous to me that talking about it makes my head hurt, so I have no interest in debating the matter. Sure, we have to work under the assumption that things are true in order to function, but that's different.

[Enters Laughing]

I don't consider my POVs to be correct - I consider them to be my POV.

Is there an important difference in meaning between "POV" and "belief" to you? If so, could you explain that difference? I am talking about beliefs here, and you are clearly contradicting yourself if you say that:

1. You have the belief that p.
2. You don't believe that your belief that p is correct.

I 'believe' that the Sun will rise again tomorrow - but I don't think that my belief is necessarily correct, because I know that there is a possibility that the Sun might not rise again tomorrow.

[FDG]

No one can absolutely positively KNOW something.

Oh well, depends. I know that right now I'm writing on my keyboard.

[Phaedrus]

The fact that you think something is The Truth doesn't make it so. You could be wrong, no matter how right you think you are. No one is infallible.

I completely agree with that.

[Hitta]

If I had to guess Phaedrus's type, I'd say INFp. He seems to have the -Ni/+Ne thing going on, but he doesn't have the logic to organize it.

[Joy]

No one can absolutely positively KNOW something.

Oh well, depends. I know that right now I'm writing on my keyboard.

That's an example of something that you are as close as you could possibly be to KNOWING. Even that isn't 100% absolute though.

[Phaedrus]

No one can absolutely positively KNOW something.

How do you know that? If what you say is true, then of course you can't know that no one can absolutely positively know something -- and that was exactly what you said too. So, it is possible that you are wrong, and if you are someone might in fact absolutely positively know something.

And there's no such thing as an absolute PROOF of anything, either.

That is also something that you can't know for sure -- unless you have a proof of it ... So, if you are right about what you say here, there might be an absolute proof of something.

[Phaedrus]

I don't consider my POVs to be correct - I consider them to be my POV.

Is there an important difference in meaning between "POV" and "belief" to you? If so, could you explain that difference? I am talking about beliefs here, and you are clearly contradicting yourself if you say that:

1. You have the belief that p.
2. You don't believe that your belief that p is correct.

I 'believe' that the Sun will rise again tomorrow - but I don't think that my belief is necessarily correct, because I know that there is a possibility that the Sun might not rise again tomorrow.

I agree with that. I haven't said that you have to believe that your belief is necessarily correct, only that you have to believe that it is correct. Logically necessary truths is a sub-set of the set of truths.

[Joy]

No one can absolutely positively KNOW something.

How do you know that? If what you say is true, then of course you can't know that no one can absolutely positively know something -- and that was exactly what you said too. So, it is possible that you are wrong, and if you are someone might in fact absolutely positively know something.

And there's no such thing as an absolute PROOF of anything, either.

That is also something that you can't know for sure -- unless you have a proof of it ... So, if you are right about what you say here, there might be an absolute proof of something.

Of course it's possible that I'm wrong. That's always a possibility.

[Phaedrus]

Of course it's possible that I'm wrong. That's always a possibility.

Then we seem to agree on the important points. I hope you also realize that the possibility of being wrong presupposes the existence of objective truths. If truth were relative, no one would be wrong -- and of course no one would be right either. Therefore truth is not relative.

[Joy]

Is it possible that you are wrong?

[FDG]

No one can absolutely positively KNOW something.

Oh well, depends. I know that right now I'm writing on my keyboard.

That's an example of something that you are as close as you could possibly be to KNOWING. Even that isn't 100% absolute though.

It definitely is, especially if I say "0.01 seconds before this sentence was written I was writing on my keyboard".

[Phaedrus]

Is it possible that you are wrong?

Of course it is possible that I am wrong about a lot of things -- but I don't believe that I am. And just because something is possible, it doesn't mean that it is likely, and it doesn't mean that it is true either. To say that it is possible that someone is wrong is not an argument against that person's claims .

[Enters Laughing]

Of course it's possible that I'm wrong. That's always a possibility.

Then we seem to agree on the important points. I hope you also realize that the possibility of being wrong presupposes the existence of objective truths. If truth were relative, no one would be wrong -- and of course no one would be right either. Therefore truth is not relative.

It's possible to have some relative truths being more true than others, without any of them being objective. If you say someone is wrong, that is a relative truth too.

[marooned]

From a subjective point of view truths can appear absolute... but the more objective you make your lense, the more and more relative truth starts to appear... eventually it becomes so uncertain one starts to doubt the existence of truth altogether, instead viewing it as a silly construct dreamed up by humans looking for absolutes in a sea of inconstancy. Generally everything is relative. There are possibilities and probabilities, some of which can be rounded to absolutes or certainties... but generally nothing can truly be certain. If one tries to argue about it logically that will fail, because logic is very small... it is insufficient. Eventually all logic starts going in circles that make no sense...

[Joy]

From a subjective point of view truths can appear absolute... but the more objective you make your lense, the more and more relative truth starts to appear... eventually it becomes so uncertain one starts to doubt the existence of truth altogether, instead viewing it as a silly construct dreamed up by humans looking for absolutes in a sea of inconstancy. Generally everything is relative. There are possibilities and probabilities, some of which can be rounded to absolutes or certainties... but generally nothing can truly be certain. If one tries to argue about it logically that will fail, because logic is very small... it is insufficient. Eventually all logic starts going in circles that make no sense...

That's pretty much my perspective as well.

[anndelise]

No one can absolutely positively KNOW something.

Oh well, depends. I know that right now I'm writing on my keyboard.

That's an example of something that you are as close as you could possibly be to KNOWING. Even that isn't 100% absolute though.

It definitely is, especially if I say "0.01 seconds before this sentence was written I was writing on my keyboard".

writing on your keyboard as in taking pen/pencil/writing implement to make marks onto your keyboard???
or using the keyboard to "write" on your screen?

Here is an example of believing one's POV to be the truth, YOU know what you meant.....
but it not quite fitting "reality" due to the mental structure of the POV, and quite possibly the language being used to describe that POV/"reality".

In this is one of the ways in which MBTI and Socionics differ. The languages used to describe an INTp is often quite different from the language being used to describe an INTP. Just because they use the same word/acronym, doesn't mean that they are describing the same thing....

Just as if my daughter were to tell me she's "writing on her keyboard", I could not be sure she was using the keyboard to "write" on her screen.

[Gilly]

You'll never hear sense from him.

Gilly, I've heard nothing but sense from Phaedrus from the day I got here. He's never made any illogical or irrational assertion whatsoever, his reasoning is meticulous and his claims are undoubtedly founded.

[Phaedrus]

It's possible to have some relative truths being more true than others, without any of them being objective.

That's a misuse of the word "true". You are talking about something else than I am talking about.

If you say someone is wrong, that is a relative truth too.

Almost every time you seem to confuse the two logically distinct concepts truth and knowledge. If I say that someone is wrong, I am stating a belief of mine. That belief is either true or false (and nothing else). My statement that someone is wrong is coming from a perspective that is relative in the sense that it is my perspective, and that not every person in the world shares that perspective. But that doesn't tell us anything about the truth value of my statement, because truth has nothing to do with perspectives. You are not using the word "true" correctly, and the reason why you don't is probably that you automatically think of knowledge in relation to the word "truth".

[anndelise]

It's possible to have some relative truths being more true than others, without any of them being objective.

That's a misuse of the word "true". You are talking about something else than I am talking about.

If you say someone is wrong, that is a relative truth too.

Almost every time you seem to confuse the two logically distinct concepts truth and knowledge. If I say that someone is wrong, I am stating a belief of mine. That belief is either true or false (and nothing else). My statement that someone is wrong is coming from a perspective that is relative in the sense that it is my perspective, and that not every person in the world shares that perspective. But that doesn't tell us anything about the truth value of my statement, because truth has nothing to do with perspectives. You are not using the word "true" correctly, and the reason why you don't is probably that you automatically think of knowledge in relation to the word "truth".

"truth" is a funny thing. being humans and not "god", we are limited by our human brains and thus limited to the interpretations of the world that those brains give us. As humans, we could never "know" that what our brain has perceived and interpreted is 100% objective or "true". We can pretty much only have varying degrees of personal certainty...or "beliefs". But we can never have full knowledge nor "know truth" of our environment. So while you can talk all you want about "that belief is either true or false and nothing else", you can't do more than rely on your own personal certainty as to it's truthness or falseness....of that, I am certain.

[aka-kitsune]

I think this thread has conclusively crossed the line into "Matrix" territory. Where's Neo?? And how do we all know we're not just generating this consensual "reality" but really hooked up to power our all-powerful cyber-captors??

[Phaedrus]

I will try again to explain why some of you are confusing the two distinctly different concepts truth and knowledge, using Loki's post as an example.

From a subjective point of view truths can appear absolute...

Correction. From a subjective point of view beliefs can appear to be absolutely true. But we usually don't know whether they are or not.

but the more objective you make your lense, the more and more relative truth starts to appear...

Correction. The more objective you make your lense, the more relative our beliefs start to appear.

eventually it becomes so uncertain one starts to doubt the existence of truth altogether, instead viewing it as a silly construct dreamed up by humans looking for absolutes in a sea of inconstancy.

What becomes uncertain is not truth itself but whether we have access to it or not. We know that every one of our beliefs is either true or false, but we don't know which. There is nothing uncertain about truth, it is our beliefs that are uncertain.

Generally everything is relative.

It is rather easy to see that that statement is false, because it is a logical contradiction (and every logical contradiction is necessarily false). If everything is relative, the statement that everything is relative is also relative. But the statement itself claims to be generally true, which it can't be if everything is relative. So, we can dismiss the statement on the grounds that is presupposes what it denies.

There are possibilities and probabilities, some of which can be rounded to absolutes or certainties... but generally nothing can truly be certain.

Even I can agree with what you say here (if we understand it in a not too strictly philosophical sense), but you are not talking about truth here, you are talking about knowledge.

If one tries to argue about it logically that will fail, because logic is very small... it is insufficient.

Logic is not the answer to everything in the world, and in that sense it is perhaps "small" and "insufficient". But it will not fail when we use it to analyze arguments, because its existence is presupposed by everyone of us every time we think, and it does not fail when we use it to show that some arguments are valid and some invalid.

Eventually all logic starts going in circles that make no sense...

Only to those who don't understand it. Not everyone can think logically to the same extent, because not everyone is equally intelligent. But the ability to think logically can be improved by training and studies, just as you can improve your results on IQ tests by training and education.

[Enters Laughing]

Human knowledge equals truth because we can only use human experience and judgments to determine 'truth' - what Anndelise said :wink:. Even if there was some kind of objective truth independent of humans, we can never be certain of it - our knowledge is what we consider to be true at a particular moment in time - so truth and knowledge should be considered the same thing by the individual. The more objective the truth, the less useful it is - what is an example of an objective truth anyway? I can't think of one.

[Joy]

LMAO who was the other person who voted "all of the time"?

[Phaedrus]

what is an example of an objective truth anyway? I can't think of one.

Here is one: There are truths that no human will ever know of.