I didn't say that I thought you were bright in general.Originally Posted by Ezra
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.I thought you were brighter than she is. Maybe I was wrong.
Phaedrus, this isn't about being bright. This is about opening your mind up to new possibilities, regardless of how good you may be at doing it.
ahahahahaahahI didn't say that I thought you were bright in general.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.I thought you were brighter than she is. Maybe I was wrong.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Why does Phaedrus just ignore my posts.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
No, they are not distinct. MBTT only focuses on the other side of the coin in the descriptions you have read on this phenomenon. Both MBTT and Socionics base their understanding of extraversion and introversion on Jung. And Jung is very clear on this. Of course it has to do with where you exert your mental energy, but Jung also describes other aspects of this phenomenon, and it has a lot to do with where you get you mental energy from too.
When I made a google search on the key words "extraversion", "introversion", and "MBTI", the first hit I got was this one: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...troversion.asp
As you can see, the second sentence in the text captures both aspects: "Where do you put your attention and get your energy?" The main reason to focus so much on energy directions is that there are clear differences at a neurological level between extraverts and introverts. It is something that can be measured, so it is not of paramount importance exactly how we define the words we are using when we refer to this biological phenomenon.
Whether you focus on where you exert your mental energy or where you get your mental energy from, whether you see this phenomeon as a distinct bipolar dichotomy or whether you think that it is better seen as a continuum, there is still a very clear consensus on what are the typical characteristics of extraverts and introverts, and also on which person in real life is an extravert and who is an introvert. We can observe and describe the typical characteristics of both groups, and we can measure peoples neurological energy levels. We can study the general thinking processes, attitudes, and behaviours of extraverts and introverts, what they are typically good and bad at, and also how they typically react and interpret each other. All that, and more, has been done, and the reasearch continues. Here is another link that may shed some light on the phenomenon (even though I do not necessarily agree with everything said there): http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/extravert.html
I don't do it intentionally. Sometimes the reason might be that I think that I have already answered it indirectly by answering to another person's post. In your case I answered your first post in this thread, and the second one I forgot about. It is also easier to miss your posts, since you don't use the quote function. It would be more convenient if you did.
Oh yeah, another reason why MBTT doesn't work.
It thinks human beings are made up of four functions instead of eight, and that you are either Fe/Fi, Se/Si, Te/Ti and Ne/Ni. So if you are Fe, you don't actually have any Fi. No questions, it simply doesn't exist as a function in you. You have Dominant, Auxiliary, Tertiary and Inferior functions, and four of the aforementioned functions exist in you. The other four do not. They may or may not exist in others, but they do not exist in you. Only four do.
Sure MBTI hasn't done a good job on the functions, but then again functions is not what MBTI is mostly about.
Phaddy, do you think I am bright? No? What if I agree with you? Could your opinion change then?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
MBTT also talk about eight functions as in Socionics -- they just don't mention all of them as often. And just because MBTT has got the functions confused it doesn't mean that they cannot describe the behaviours and attitudes of the types as empirically observable phenomena correctly. In fact they do (if you ignore all their references to particular functions).
MBTI (not MBTT) is a perfectly useful typing tool. It is an intstrument that works better than most socionic tests to determine your correct socionic type. It is always the case that people who get a certain MBTI result are most likely the corresponding type in Socionics. There is no guarantee, of course, and there is no guarantee in MBTI either. Some ESIs/ISFJs score as ISTJs, some ESEs/ESFJs score as ISFJs -- especially in Sweden where introversion has been close to a "norm" in society for ages. We know that many ILIs/INTPs score as INTXs with a close to 50/50 result on J/P. It all depends on how honest the person is and how good he or she is at objectively analyzing and understanding his or her own behaviour.
I don't know exactly how bright you are. That is too difficult to determine with any accuracy over the Internet, if you don't go by test results. But you have proven more than once that you clearly have an above forum average intelligence. Whether or not you agree with me does not influence my estimation of your intelligence very much. More important is whether you are capable of understanding things, and you seem to do that to a greater extent than the majority of people on this forum.Phaddy, do you think I am bright? No? What if I agree with you? Could your opinion change then?
And that's why it's difficult to correlate with socionics, which is mostly about the functions.Sure MBTI hasn't done a good job on the functions, but then again functions is not what MBTI is mostly about.
That is an incorrect and misleading way of describing it. MBTI is a typing tool, MBTT is a theory on the 16 types. Socionics is also a theory on the 16 types, and it is totally incorrect to think that the functions exist in themselves as some kind of free floating entities without any necessary relation to the 16 types.And that's why it's difficult to correlate with socionics, which is mostly about the functions.Sure MBTI hasn't done a good job on the functions, but then again functions is not what MBTI is mostly about.
Both Socionics and MBTT are primarily about the types and their relations, and the functional explanations must be seen in relation to those types. And the 16 types are the same regardless of which theoretical glasses you see them through.
You've got your opinion, I've got mine. You treat socionics and MBTT with equal regard; I take socionics more seriously.
He doesn't believe people can read the same information and have different opinions about it unless they're stupid. Ne PoLR.You've got your opinion, I've got mine. You treat socionics and MBTT with equal regard; I take socionics more seriously.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
This is not about opinions. Only the objective truth matters, and you are blind to it. You should not have an opinion on this, since you obviously haven't studied the subject enough. Your ignorance is rather irritating, to say it bluntly.You've got your opinion, I've got mine.
Either you are too stupid to understand what I am saying, or you are intentionally misdescribing it, which is almost equivalent to lying. I have been very, very clear on one thing -- that I do not treat Socionics and MBTT with equal regard.
Oh em gee.This is not about opinions. Only the objective truth matters, and you are blind to it. You should not have an opinion on this, since you obviously haven't studied the subject enough. Your ignorance is rather irritating, to say it bluntly.You've got your opinion, I've got mine.
Either you are too stupid to understand what I am saying, or you are intentionally misdescribing it, which is almost equivalent to lying. I have been very, very clear on one thing -- that I do not treat Socionics and MBTT with equal regard.
The discussions in Germany made me think of another reason why MBTT doesn't work.
Rick has already posted in his blog about situations when people get stuck in their weaker functions. We also discussed several RL examples of people who. due to spending a lot of time (as in the household they were raised in) may be inhibited from obviously using their ego functions, so that it's not obvious to those around them. However the type is the same since time spent in a more favorable environment would make the person "come out of the closet" so to speak; so it's not about type changing.
So, for instance, adominant who grew up in an evironment where Fe EJ activities are frowned upon - let's say, an EIE in a Gamma household - would feel discouraged about Fe EJ initiatives, and become a more reserved, perhaps "shy" or "introverted" person than otherwise. However, a change in environment - such as spending a lot of time with Betas - would increasingly encourage the EIE to use
Again, this has nothing - nothing at all - with the actual socionics type being affected; it has to do with the person's external behavior "masking" the type. It should always be possible to see the real type, in all situations, using socionics typing; but if you go by MBTT typing, you're more likely to be fooled by the mask.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Yeah, Expat, I've had a little think about what you said about my being raised in a household that does not appreciate Se, and I agree with it. It has been discouraged. However, my dad and I fucking love Ti, but my mum hates it. That's a little supressed, but not that much. I still lead quite a Ti way of life; especially in my head.
Why and how MBTI has apparently 'fucked up' the functions
Right, a lot of people think MBTT is inconsistent in the way it deals with the functions. For example, why does an ISFP have FiSe as dominant and auxiliary functions, even though Fi is rational?
Here's why. Look at Keirsey's temperaments; SP, SJ, NF and NT. Now, when Myers-Briggs first started their shizzle, they thought "I know, there are four temperaments - SF, ST, NT and NF" but Keirsey looked at that and said "wtf omgz". It was either him or them who thought that SJs had more in common with each other than two STs, like an ESTP and an ESTJ. Anyway, the two Ss were changed; now it was SJ and SP.
And so why do ISFJs and ISTJs have Si dominance? Because ESTJ and ESFJ do. Think about it. Rules, laws and principles make SJs comfortable, so they must share something in common. So what is it? Si. And what is Si about in MBTT? Well, it's what conservatism comes from. It's a comfortability with the past; a yearning for tradition. This we don't really attribute to any function in socionics (because otherwise LSIs and LSEs would be similar), but in MBTT, it's all down to Si.
Likewise, what do the SPs share in common? Se. Se is the experience of living in the moment as defined by MBTT. Hedonism is defined by full usage of Se. Imagine if the LSI's Se was transferred across to MBTT. They are hedonistic people who live in the moment. Does it make sense? Of course not. That's because LSIs are totally different to ISTPs. So, you have the ISTP who has in fact TiSe dom. and aux. functions, and the ISFP who has FiSe dom. and aux. functions.
The problem arises, however, when we get to the NFs. What is the need to change the functions around for the NFs, if all NFs are alike? It's not as if there is a distinction between NPs and NJs. So why can't the INFJ have FiNe dom. and aux. functions? Consistency? I really don't know. Perhaps someone could explain how and why this is the case.
You really should do some more reading on MBTT and Jung, Ezra. The questions you are asking belong to the basics. You will probably also find most of the answers in Lytov's introduction to Socionics, which you can find on his site. (Why are people so uneducated? Why can't you bother to read the most basic texts on Socionics before you start trying to invent the wheel again?)
Well, Keirsey came after MBTI, but you're right that Si is viewed in MBTI and lots of Jung/MBTI-related writings as the source of conservatism...and Se is viewed as as an awareness of the environment around one (something that ISps and ESps have in common, even in Socionics).
The other issue is that in MBTI, using a function publically, in a way that's obvious and that directly affects one's life decisions, is viewed as the "extraverted" form of that function, whereas a more "hidden" use is seen as the "introverted" form.
However, in Socionics, it is generally considered that using a function publically and in ways that most directly affect one's life decisions is more characteristic of the base function, whether it's introverted or extraverted.
Don't talk to me about invention. I've read that intro, and it explains jack shit about what you are arguing (what are you arguing?).
I actually learn better by asking questions and getting answers than by doing the research myself...but that doesn't stop me from doing the research myself...I just get a better understanding of the concept at hand when I can talk it out with someone. Could be why a lot of us come here and ask questions instead of just reading about what we want to know.
I sympathize with that attitude. But if those of us who have actually read some material that we think is important if you want to get a correct understanding of something give you a link or mention a text that we ask you to read, you should follow our advice and not ignore it. You should not refuse to read what we recommend and just stick to asking questions, because then we (or at least I) will be less inclined to answer your questions in the future.
Absolutely, tM. I share this point of view with you, and always have done. Word of advice though; don't listen to Phaedrus.
Haha well yes of course.
I couldn't get through college if I didn't do at least SOME research. I do actually do a lot of reading about things that interest me but it's just not the easiest/most effective way for me to learn. And if anyone gave me link I would read what that website had to say.
Phaedrus are you frustrated? To be completely honest this forum has actually aroused enough of a negative emotional reaction out of me before that I had to take a break from it for a while. Need a break?
Last edited by theMime.; 02-01-2008 at 05:43 PM.
Well, yes I am frustrated, but I have also become immune to people's negative reactions. I expect them, and I guess that makes me cynical.
MBTI Function Theory - Wrong?
I've come to the conclusion that the Socionics function ordering is a better fit for the MBTI types than what Myers and Briggs have proposed. Consider the following observations:
1) ISTPs are considered to be introverted thinkers like INTPs, yet they display behaviour that doesn't fit with what Jung envisioned regarding introverted thinking. Take this quote from an ISTP profile as an example:
"Like most SPs, ISTPs may have trouble with rote and abstract classroom learning, which tend not to be good measures of their actual intelligence."
Jung's version of the introverted thinker is quite close to the prototypical intellectual. He said that introverted thinking "creates theories for their own sake", and that "the creative power of this thinking shows itself when it actually creates an idea which, though not inherent in concrete fact, is yet the most suitable abstract expression of it." What kind of introverted thinker would enjoy creating theories and thinking abstractly, but have problems with "abstract classroom learning"?
Therefore, it seems wrong to classify ISTPs as introverted thinkers.
2) If you compare ISTPs with ISFPs and INTPs, it seems to me that they have more in common with ISFPs in terms of what types of careers they like, what types of interests they have, and with respect to their overall behaviour. For example, ISFPs and ISTPs are both drawn towards the skilled trades as career choices.
Finally, when you look at ISTP and ISFP descriptions, they bear a good similarity with their Socionic equivalents. For example, ISTPs are said to be skilled with tools and ISFPs are good artists. In Socionics, the ISTp is considered the "craftsman", and ISFps are supposedly good artists as well.
3) MBTI descriptions of introverted intuition and introverted sensing bear little resemblance with what Jung had in mind.
Consider the following descriptions of introverted intuitives taken from "Gifts Differing":
- "Are determined to the point of stubborness"
- "Are stimulated by difficulties, and most ingenious in solving them"
- "Are stimulated willing to concede that the impossible takes a little longer--but not much"
In what way are these descriptions of a perceiving function? Being driven and stubborn are more an aspect of will-power than perception. Therefore, I don't think that this is what Jung had in mind. In fact, it seems that aspects of the MBTI judging function are being infused into the descriptions.
I would go into the introverted sensing function as well, but take my word that the pattern is similar.
In contrast, I don't think that Jung's descriptions of introverted intuition and introverted sensing go against IP types. The way Jung describes them, these types are often artists, and I notice artistic tendencies in all four of these types. In fact, introverted intuitives are supposed to be very adept in abstract art, and wouldn't INFPs seem to fit this roll well (especially more so than INFJs)?
4) Every time I've seen a poll about what Socionics type fits what MBTI type, I've noticed that Socionics XXXx = MBTI XXXX more than any other possibility. Consider the following poll as an example: http://forums.intpcentral.com/poll.p...ts&pollid=1414. LII = INTp, and it is the most frequent choice for INTPs. What's interesting about that poll is that the test people used to decide for it was purely about what functions you value most. That means that most people in that poll preferred Socionics NiTe over TiNe.
What all of this means to me is that the Socionics function ordering is more appropriate for the MBTI than what has been proposed. I don't think that the MBTI measures these functions flawlessly, but that there should be a better correlation with the Socionics function ordering. What that means is that the MBTI and Socionics are striving to be the same system, so, if Socionics becomes more popular in North America, perhaps someone will merge the two systems together, taking what is best from both of them, and maybe creating a test that accurately determines the 16 basic types. Also note that I think that the general MBTI descriptions of the types are generally better than the Socionics equivalents. However, both systems need some tweaking. Coming up with descriptions that are statistically validated might be a step in the right direction.
Jason
Last edited by jason_m; 08-26-2008 at 02:20 AM.
MBTI was good in its day. Socionics is better.
Yes, it is. Good that you have noticed that.
Totally correct. They have to be different, because they are designed to capture (as dominant functions) the attitudes and behaviours of LIIs, EIIs, LSIs, and ESIs.
Yes.
Yes, that pattern is extremely clear. The empirical evidence is conclusive on this.
Yes, the MBTT functions ordering should be replaced with the socionic functions ordering. They are describing the same types, so it would be much better if they talked the same language using the same terminology too. It would avoid misunderstandings, and we would get rid of all the bullshit coming from idiots who don't understand that the types are the same in Socionics and MBTT.
Yes, that's what we should strive for. Dmitri Lytov has had similar ideas on this.
Yes, that' correct too. And it is an important fact that most people totally ignore or refuse to accept. If we leave out the talk about functions and focus only on described attitudes and behaviours, the MBTT type descriptions capture the essence of the types better than the socionic type descriptions and they are generally more correct. The reason for this is that the MBTT type descriptions are based on empirical data (test results of various kinds, not only MBTI tests), whereas the socionic type descriptions are based on the individual lives of famous people. If the famous person is not a typical representative of his or her type (and that is not always the case), the type description will be inaccurate.
The MBTT type descriptions are much more statistically validated than that socionic ones, but the desriptions in MBTT lack in depth due to an false theory of the functions and a very poorly developed theory (which is also false) of intertype relations.
MBTT cannot survive the Forier effect. It's like a broken shell, and if you try to change MBTI to fit socionics at all then it'll be transformed beyond recognition.
Are you going all out with Randian objectivism, too? That is a foundation for Socionics as much as is Jung.
No, tcaudilllg. Don't talk about things you don't understand. The types are the same, and the type descriptions will definitely be improved if we incorporate the empirical data that are lacking in the socionic type descriptions.
In what way? How do you mean exactly?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote