Why MBTI doesn't work

[Phaedrus]

Again, Socionics is BASED ON function use. Dichotomies are secondary. As opposed to what Phaedrus said, which is roughly the opposite.

No. You are simply wrong. Dichotomies have never been secondary in Socionics. They are just as important as functions. Functions and the four dichotomies can never ever be in conflict. If you know your type according to the four dichotomies, you also know for sure which functions your type is defined by. And if you know your functions, you automatically know your type according to the four dichotomies. I repeat, they can never ever contradict each other.

Socionics is not based on the functions in the first place. It is based on Jung's eight types. Based on Jung's types, Augusta discovered the intertype relations. The functions explain the intertype relations and the 16 types -- but they are certainly not the primary source of information on the nature of the types. We know the types through observations of people's behaviour independently of any theoretical model on the functions.

[Slacker]

Functions vs. Dichotomies

[Expat]

Functions vs. Dichotomies

Good call, but I don't need to read Phaedrus's posts to know that he's going to say that Rick is wrong about that. He will quote the bits in Rick's writings that mention dichotomies, without even considering that Rick himself regards them as less important than functions. Wanna bet?

[Ezra]

Again, Socionics is BASED ON function use. Dichotomies are secondary. As opposed to what Phaedrus said, which is roughly the opposite.

No. You are simply wrong.

Is she fuck. Slacker Mom is completely right. You are wrong.

[Phaedrus]

Again, Socionics is BASED ON function use. Dichotomies are secondary. As opposed to what Phaedrus said, which is roughly the opposite.

No. You are simply wrong.

Is she fuck. Slacker Mom is completely right. You are wrong.

No. She is wrong, because she totally dismisses dichotomies and seems to believe that there is no relation between dichotomies and functions. The essence of what Rick says does not contradict what I say here. And regardless of what Rick has to say about it, the functions and the four dichotomies can never contradict each other. You always must be the type that, according to the four dichotomies, corresponds to your functional ordering. If you have in your ego block, you must be an SLE, and you must be an ESTP in MBTT. No other option is available.

[FDG]

If you have in your ego block, you must be an SLE, and you must be an ESTP in MBTT. No other option is available.

And if somebody's different, can he at least cut himself

[Jarno]

Functions vs. Dichotomies

Very good informative article. It summarizes the basic differences of functions vs dichotomy's.

Although it's to bad that the second part emphasizes to much on weakness on rare MBTI sites where dichotomy's are explained in percentages.
Not all MBTI tests work as an analogue measurament.

[Phaedrus]

Not all MBTI tests work as an analogue measurament.

Correct. And all that do so are wrong.

[Ezra]

If you have in your ego block, you must be an SLE, and you must be an ESTP in MBTT. No other option is available.

Wrong. See Expat's post in UDP's thread about 8w9s. You can't correlate both theories. Se MBTT is not the same as Se socionics. Why? Because one is formulated by Myers-Briggs and the other by Augusta. They each have their unique spin on the functions. Se socionics is more power-based. In MBTT, they're fun-lovers. It is perfectly reasonable, for example, to be an ESTJ and an SLE.

[Jarno]

Se socionics is more power-based. In MBTT, they're fun-lovers. It is perfectly reasonable, for example, to be an ESTJ and an SLE.

This begs for a respons from me or Pheadrus.

But I've decided some time ago not to go into this discussion anymore.

Believe what you want, I believe I know what the creators of both theory's intended to achieve. (damn is hard to not respons...)

[Phaedrus]

Se MBTT is not the same as Se socionics.

Correct. Don't you think I know that? I have tried to explain these things to you, but you have not yet understood them. The reason why a person with in his ego block must be an ESTP in MBTT is not that he has Se as dominant function and Ti as auxiliary function. The reason why a person with in the ego block must be an ESTP is that he by logical necessity is an SLE in Socionics (because the SLE is defined as having in the ego block). And every SLE is an ESTP in MBTT.

The reason why every SLE is an ESTP in MBTT is that an SLE is also defined by the four dichotomies in Socionics. And the four dichotomies correspond completely with the four dichotomies in MBTT. So, every SLE must necessarily be an ESTP because an SLE is 1) an extraverted type, 2) a sensory (= sensing) type, 3) a logical (= thinking) type, and 4) an irrational (= a perceiving) type.

As you should know by now, all of the 16 types in Socionics are based on Jung's eight types, and so are the 16 types in MBTT. The symbols "J" and "P" were suggested by Isabel Myers as labels for Jung's dichotomy between rational and irrational types. All the J types in MBTT are rational types in Jung's typology and consequently also in Socionics. All the P types in MBTT are irrational types according to Jung and according to Socionics. That should not be too hard to understand.

It is perfectly reasonable, for example, to be an ESTJ and an SLE.

That is of course totally impossible -- which you will realize if you have understood what I have tried to explain above.

[MysticSonic]

"The reason why every SLE is an ESTP in MBTT is that an SLE is also defined by the four dichotomies in Socionics. And the four dichotomies correspond completely with the four dichotomies in MBTT. So, every SLE must necessarily be an ESTP because an SLE is 1) an extraverted type, 2) a sensory (= sensing) type, 3) a logical (= thinking) type, and 4) an irrational (= a perceiving) type."

I find this interesting. You seem to have rescinded your conclusion that the ABCd=ABCD is based upon the MBTT descriptions and Socionic descriptions correlating well enough to make the archetypes identical, or at least have begun to shift the focus of your argument upon your above claim. There's a problem, however: the dichotomies, although having the same name, are not defined in the same manner. For instance, extraversion and introversion are defined as the scale to which one is energized by socialization versus isolation, and the judging and perceiving scale is defined as how one approaches one's external environment. These contrast to the Socionic definitions of these dichotomies, in that Socionic's introversion and extraversion is based upon one's orientation towards or away from the world, and the J/P determines whether or not one approaches things in a rational manner versus an irrational manner on both an internal and external level.

[Expat]

There's a problem, however: the dichotomies, although having the same name, are not defined in the same manner.

Rocky and I made precisely the same point over, and over again, some time ago. Phaedrus said it's "irrelevant".

Lytov wrote extensively in this, especially on the rationality/irrationality vs J/P issue. What he actually wrote, very clearly, is that despite overlaps, they are NOT the same since J/P is a pseudo-dichotomy, with some socionics types being ueber-J and others ueber-P, but with many types where individuals can go either way according to the J/P definitions. Lytov mentioned specifically IEE and EIE as examples of such cases.

Yet Phaedrus quotes Lytov as saying that they are identical and that the differences are "irrelevant".


As for this:

I find this interesting. You seem to have rescinded your conclusion that the ABCd=ABCD is based upon the MBTT descriptions and Socionic descriptions correlating well enough to make the archetypes identical, or at least have begun to shift the focus of your argument upon your above claim.

You're missing the point, which is this: Phaedrus will simply use whatever argument he thinks is available to support the ABCd=ABCD notion, regardless of source or consistency.

[Phaedrus]

For instance, extraversion and introversion are defined as the scale to which one is energized by socialization versus isolation

Certainly not. You don't seem to understand that extraversion and introversion are not words. They are biological phenomena that we don't need to define. We can observe them in people. We don't need to know what we are observing, but we can see that what we observe in one person is the same phenomenon that we can observe in another person. There is absolutely no disagreement between Socionics and MBTT on how to understand extraversion and introversion.

and the judging and perceiving scale is defined as how one approaches one's external environment.

No, that is how it is explained. The same considerations apply here. We can observe which people are rationals (judgers) and which are irrationals (perceivers). There is absolutely no relevant difference between Socionics and MBTT on how to describe typical rational and irrational behaviour.

[Slacker]

Jesus Christ.

"Extraversion" and "Introversion" are indeed words. See over there - they're made of letters. Words.

They are words that are used to describe something real that exists in the world that different people interpret differently.

[Jarno]

I totally know what both party's in this discussion are trying to say.

But to summarize...

YES, according to the definitions you could certainly be categorized in different types among MBTI and Socionics.
NO, according to the intentions of both theory's you can't be categorized in different types.

And intentions is what is most important. Don't let yourself be guided by some minor deviations of definitions.

If MBTI had done a little more thinking, they had improved their definitions to the ones of Socionics. Maybe it even happens someday when Socionics knowledge is more available.

If I'm describing the same car as someone else, but I call it a fast red car, and the other person calls it a dodge viper. My definition is poor, but it is still the exact same car that we are both describing.

[Phaedrus]

Jesus Christ.

"Extraversion" and "Introversion" are indeed words. See over there - they're made of letters. Words.

They are words that are used to describe something real that exists in the world that different people interpret differently.

Read what I write more carefully, please. I didn't say that "extraversion" and "introversion" are not words. Of course they are words. What I did say was that extraversion and introversion are not words. That's the difference between meaning and reference -- a difference that you among many others on this forum don't understand. But if would be much more convenient for everyone if you bothered to learn this fundamental logical distinction. Perhaps you wouldn't come across as such a fool then.

And listen to Jarno even if you refuse to listen to me. He has explained it correctly in his last post.

[Slacker]

extraversion and introversion mean different things to different people. One person might consider someone shy to be introverted. Someone else might consider someone who thinks before he/she speaks to be introverted. There is no definition of any word that every person on the planet agrees to.

[MysticSonic]

"There is absolutely no disagreement between Socionics and MBTT on how to understand extraversion and introversion. "

Yes there is. MBTT posits extraversion and introversion as a phenomenon that dictates where one gets their mental energy from, whereas Socionics posits it to be where one exerts one's mental energy. These are two very distinct ideas.

[Phaedrus]

extraversion and introversion mean different things to different people.

The words "extraversion" and "introversion" mean different things to different people, that is correct. But I am not talking about the meanings of words, I am talking about the referents to those two words. The biological phenomena don't have any meaning to anyone, they just exist. And it they exist independently of what meanings people attach or do not attach to the corresponding words. The biological phenomena can be studied regardless of people's opinions about them, and they have a structure in themselves that is totally independent of our language and what we think about them.

One person might consider someone shy to be introverted. Someone else might consider someone who thinks before he/she speaks to be introverted. There is no definition of any word that every person on the planet agrees to.

Exactly. But that is no problem since we are not interested in the words "introversion" and "extraversion", we are interested in the real phenomena. People's subjective opinions on who is or isn't introverted or extraverted are totally irrelevant.

[Slacker]

extraversion and introversion mean different things to different people.

The words "extraversion" and "introversion" mean different things to different people, that is correct. But I am not talking about the meanings of words, I am talking about the referents to those two words. The biological phenomena don't have any meaning to anyone, they just exist. And it they exist independently of what meanings people attach or do not attach to the corresponding words. The biological phenomena can be studied regardless of people's opinions about them, and they have a structure in themselves that is totally independent of our language and what we think about them.

One person might consider someone shy to be introverted. Someone else might consider someone who thinks before he/she speaks to be introverted. There is no definition of any word that every person on the planet agrees to.

Exactly. But that is no problem since we are not interested in the words "introversion" and "extraversion", we are interested in the real phenomena. People's subjective opinions on who is or isn't introverted or extraverted are totally irrelevant.

MBTI and Socionics were created by different people, with different subjective opinions about what those words mean.

[Ezra]

Slacker Mom, I am in total agreement with you. Phaedrus, how can you not see the differences between the two systems? ESTP is not necessarily SLE because they are two different types from two different systems. Just because Myers and Briggs dubbed their ESTP "Se dominant, Ti auxiliary ego" doesn't mean that when Augusta does the same thing and said her SLE has "Se base, Ti creative ego" they mean the same type. They just have the same names.

And what is your problem? Let me do the honour of hitting the nail on the head. You, Phaedrus, believe that both Myers and Briggs and Augusta are right, even though they differ in opinion on the functions. You think that Se must be the same in both theories, even though it isn't. And you just can't accept this. At all. You can't accept that each theory has a different take on the Jungian functions, and that an SLE can thus be different to an ESTP. You can't accept that MBTT is flawed in its typing methods.

It's a shame. Because you're evidently not an idiot. You're just very narrow-minded. And you're clearly not an ILI, despite what you say. You have absolutely no time for Te. You have plenty of time for Ti. And you have very little Ne, nor do you value it. Which is why you can't be an ILI - otherwise you'd accept the possibilities just about everyone on this forum proposes except maybe Jarno as just that; possibilities. But you don't. You can't. Hence, your Ne is appalling. I can understand exactly why Slacker Mom believes you're an LSI, or at least a Beta. You have no regard whatsoever for any possibilities above those that fit in with your own system of views.

[Phaedrus]

MBTI and Socionics were created by different people, with different subjective opinions about what those words mean.

Certainly not. Jung, Augusta, and Myers understood extraversion and introversion in the same way, when it comes to the relevant aspects of this phenomenon.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, how can you not see the differences between the two systems?

I can see the differences very well. But they are not relevant in this context.

ESTP is not necessarily SLE because they are two different types from two different systems.

How can you fail to understand this? Are people really that stupid? I have already explained the relations between these two "types" -- these two labels, which both refer to the exact same set of real life people.

Just because Myers and Briggs dubbed their ESTP "Se dominant, Ti auxiliary ego" doesn't mean that when Augusta does the same thing and said her SLE has "Se base, Ti creative ego" they mean the same type.

Now you almost prove that you are stupid. Can you not read accurately? The functions are irrelevant -- didn't I explain that to you before? How can I express myself more clearly than I already have?

They just have the same names.

They have not the same names. But their different names refer to the same objects (the same set of people). If you fail to understand this, I don't know what do. I know of no other way to explain this in a more simple language.

And what is your problem? Let me do the honour of hitting the nail on the head. You, Phaedrus, believe that both Myers and Briggs and Augusta are right, even though they differ in opinion on the functions.

NO. They are not both right. Only Socionics seem to be a true theory, but they are talking about the same objects.

You think that Se must be the same in both theories, even though it isn't.

You cannot be that stupid ... yes, you really seem to be ... I DO NOT THINK THAT THE FUNCTIONS ARE THE SAME IN BOTH THEORIES.

[Slacker]

MBTI and Socionics were created by different people, with different subjective opinions about what those words mean.

Certainly not. Jung, Augusta, and Myers understood extraversion and introversion in the same way, when it comes to the relevant aspects of this phenomenon.

A - did you personally interview them? How do you know that.

B - do you figure you're the one to decide what is "relevant"? Bullshit.

[Ezra]

MBTI and Socionics were created by different people, with different subjective opinions about what those words mean.

Certainly not. Jung, Augusta, and Myers understood extraversion and introversion in the same way, when it comes to the relevant aspects of this phenomenon.

But that's just the E/I dichotomy. That doesn't mean they understood Te or Ni or Se or Fi in the same way.

[Gilly]

Why you people bother with this shmuck, I will never know...

[Phaedrus]

MBTI and Socionics were created by different people, with different subjective opinions about what those words mean.

Certainly not. Jung, Augusta, and Myers understood extraversion and introversion in the same way, when it comes to the relevant aspects of this phenomenon.

A - did you personally interview them? How do you know that.

Because I can read.

B - do you figure you're the one to decide what is "relevant"?

Yes. Because I understand it.

[Phaedrus]

MBTI and Socionics were created by different people, with different subjective opinions about what those words mean.

Certainly not. Jung, Augusta, and Myers understood extraversion and introversion in the same way, when it comes to the relevant aspects of this phenomenon.

But that's just the E/I dichotomy. That doesn't mean they understood Te or Ni or Se or Fi in the same way.

Have I EVER said that they did? And how many times do I need to tell you that THE FUNCTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT ? Dichotomies are not the same thing as functions. Don't you understand that? Same dichotomies, different understanding of the functions -- that's how these two theories relate to each other. Same types, slightly different focus in the type descriptions, but nevertheless they clearly have the same types in mind. ESTP descriptions are about SLEs, INTP descriptions are about ILIs, etc.

[Slacker]

MBTI and Socionics were created by different people, with different subjective opinions about what those words mean.

Certainly not. Jung, Augusta, and Myers understood extraversion and introversion in the same way, when it comes to the relevant aspects of this phenomenon.

A - did you personally interview them? How do you know that.

Because I can read.

B - do you figure you're the one to decide what is "relevant"?

Yes. Because I understand it.

A - so can the rest of us and we (a large number of us) have reached a different conclusion.

B - NO YOU DON'T. You are truly fooling yourself. You have this idea in your head and you are willing to shift your own view of reality to accommodate that incorrect idea.

[Slacker]

Why you people bother with this shmuck, I will never know...

I know that no one can get through his thick head, but I hope that newer people will see these conversations and get an idea of what's going on with him, so when he spouts off garbage in his authoritative tone, they'll see how useful his opinions are.

[Ezra]

And how many times do I need to tell you that THE FUNCTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT ?

I stopped listening at this point.

[Phaedrus]

A - so can the rest of us and we (a large number of us) have reached a different conclusion.

Most of you haven't even understood the problem, and if you have reached a different conclusion you are obviously wrong. Your brain seems to have a very limited capacity to process these things correctly, I'm afraid. It is really frustrating to discuss things with so unintelligent people.

B - NO YOU DON'T. You are truly fooling yourself. You have this idea in your head and you are willing to shift your own view of reality to accommodate that incorrect idea.

I understand it, you don't. And I can't even explain it to you, because you can't think logically. So, what is there to do about it? I really don't know.

[Gilly]

Why you people bother with this shmuck, I will never know...

I know that no one can get through his thick head, but I hope that newer people will see these conversations and get an idea of what's going on with him, so when he spouts off garbage in his authoritative tone, they'll see how useful his opinions are.

Wow, welcome to the fight...

[Slacker]

A - so can the rest of us and we (a large number of us) have reached a different conclusion.

Most of you haven't even understood the problem, and if you have reached a different conclusion you are obviously wrong. Your brain seems to have a very limited capacity to process these things correctly, I'm afraid. It is really frustrating to discuss things with so unintelligent people.

B - NO YOU DON'T. You are truly fooling yourself. You have this idea in your head and you are willing to shift your own view of reality to accommodate that incorrect idea.

I understand it, you don't. And I can't even explain it to you, because you can't think logically. So, what is there to do about it? I really don't know.

So nobody thinks logically but you, eh? Because it isn't just me and my Ti PoLR we're talking about here. Thinking you're right and everybody else is wrong is delusional.

[FDG]

Most of you haven't even understood the problem, and if you have reached a different conclusion you are obviously wrong. Your brain seems to have a very limited capacity to process these things correctly, I'm afraid. It is really frustrating to discuss things with so unintelligent people.

Uh-uh. I hope real life you don't talk much like this to a women, because by all the kicks in the nuts you would have received so far, you'd be an eunuch.

[Ezra]

A - so can the rest of us and we (a large number of us) have reached a different conclusion.

Most of you haven't even understood the problem, and if you have reached a different conclusion you are obviously wrong. Your brain seems to have a very limited capacity to process these things correctly, I'm afraid. It is really frustrating to discuss things with so unintelligent people.

B - NO YOU DON'T. You are truly fooling yourself. You have this idea in your head and you are willing to shift your own view of reality to accommodate that incorrect idea.

I understand it, you don't. And I can't even explain it to you, because you can't think logically. So, what is there to do about it? I really don't know.

She understands it, Phaedrus. You don't have a fucking clue.

[Phaedrus]

So nobody thinks logically but you, eh?

From the premise that you can't think logically it doesn't follow that nobody but me can think logically. There are many people on this forum who can think logically. Even you can do that to some extent, so my statement wasn't strictly true, but you make too many logical mistakes in your reasoning. It's not easy for me to stand such a phenomenon.

Because it isn't just me and my Ti PoLR we're talking about here. Thinking you're right and everybody else is wrong is delusional.

That is another false statement of yours. I do not think that everybody else is wrong. Some people actually agree with me. And of course you are yourself totally convinced that you are right when you claim that I am wrong. So, you are no different from me in that respect.

[Phaedrus]

She understands it, Phaedrus. You don't have a fucking clue.

I thought you were brighter than she is. Maybe I was wrong.

[Ezra]

She understands it, Phaedrus. You don't have a fucking clue.

I thought you were brighter than she is. Maybe I was wrong.

Maybe you are wrong about a lot of things, Phaedrus. But my being bright is certainly not one of them, and her not being bright is.