Phaedrus' Psychology

[Expat]

For how some russian schools have consensus on EJ being the most likely to aim for leadership, take how on socioniko.net they are defined as being the linear-pushy group, or how in terms of occupational advice they are prescribed towards leadership. In any case I don't think that EJs either are any more inclined than EPs to pursue leadership, but rather that we shouldn't narrow too much down a typing based on the fact that a person likes or dislikes leadershipp...

Ah, but that's different. If you look at the temperament page of the wiki, we have touched on that. EJs are linear-pushy because they feel the need to do something; but not necessarily because of power. For instance, the EJ temperament of the ESE is what makes them be a typically active type in organizing parties, trying to make people feel good, etc. So they are very active in the pursuit of their goals - Fe-Si goals - but those goals are not concerned with "power" as such.

[aestrivex]

of these people, it doesn't look like most of them "are early posters whose types were never really questioned."

Okay, I would include in that "classification" Herzy, Krae, Jadae, Kim, Kioshi, Ms K, MysticSonic, science as magic, Slacker Mom, Slava, tcaudilllg, vague. Just over half.

perhaps i should clarify that. they are all early posters, and none of their types were ever challenged, per se. however, what i'm trying to say by this categorization is that i can find good reasons to accept these people as some particular type anyway (with the possible exceptions of those people i mentioned). i don't think the stigma of "these people have been EII forever it is blasphemy to now call them SEI" really applies in that case, at least to my typings.

[Expat]

I'm not sure if we understand each other. I, too, think those typings are mostly (or all) legitimate; I was proposing one explanation for the ~40% convergence between your and his typings - as far as his conclusions are concerned.

[aestrivex]

I was proposing one explanation for the ~40% convergence between your and his typings - as far as his conclusions are concerned.

that i can accept, although god only knows how he comes up with his typings.

[Mariano Rajoy]

We have been discussing Phaedrus's psychology about others, but it would be much more interesting to discuss Phaedrus's psychology; what is actually going on in his psyche.

[Phaedrus]

We have been discussing Phaedrus's psychology about others, but it would be much more interesting to discuss Phaedrus's psychology; what is actually going on in his psyche.

... ...

[Ezra]

I have never claimed any of that. Go back to FG's post. He has explained what I mean better than I have been able to do. At least that's what I thought. But if you can't even understand his explanation, then I haven't got a clue what to do about you. You don't seem to get it, no matter how simple and perfectly lucid the explanation happens to be.

You're an idiot, Phaedrus.

That practical problem can occur anywhere. An ESI can also identify with ISTJ descriptions. I have personally witnessed that phenomenon. Nothing strange about it, really. Many traits are similar in those two types, and people often don't know themselves perfectly. But it is extremely obvious that the LSI descriptions and the ISTJ descriptions refer to the same group of people.

Not always. When will you understand that?

Some people seem to have a short memory ...

... very short indeed ...

I stated a fact, based on what I've read.

Maybe you haven't understood much of what you have read about Socionics and MBTT? Maybe you haven't even read Jung?

You, Fabio and Ashton have directed me towards Jung's original descriptions. I can honestly say that Jung's Se is nothing like socionics Se.

The little expert is showing up again, is he? Well, since we agree on that, one would imagine that you would also be able to understand FDG's explanation. It is really hard to understand why you don't actually.

So because I disagree with Fabio and because he agrees with you, I don't understand. Is that what you're implying? Admit your own infallibility once in a while man; it would do you some good.

Who is this expert? Where does he come from? All of a sudden he shows up from nowhere ... and now he is all over the place ...

LIS.

I had decided not to use formal logic anymore on forums because it gets annoying, but it seems like it's needed.

So this is how you want to play. Don't even try talking about formal logic.

Your analysis does not count, we are speaking about MBTI in its pure form. ISTJs as a group identified in MBTI tend to correspond with ISTjs as a group indentified in socionics. The frequency is not equal to 1, but close. The functions follow accordingly. You cannot object to this because it's simply the way things are.

There is no fallacy here. Just pure, unadulterated dogmatism.

You don't claim it explicity, but every comment of yours on socionics tend to be about your personal analysis of some part of it. If I were you I would be far humbler and take a more back-seat approach.

Of course it's my personal analysis. As personal as your analysis is. All of mine is based on objective fact, and I will try hard to eliminate any subjectivity. If you claim something in my understanding is wrong, it's either because I misinterpreted it or because my sources have it wrong. I don't work using the Phaedrus method of argument "x is x/therefore x is x. I don't inject subjectivity into my arguments. It becomes a weak argument.

What are the specific charateristics of a Fe PoLR that are completely incompatible with LokiVanguar behavior? What are the specific characteristics of his behavior that tend to indicate ISFP as a type, and Fe as creative function instead of Te? Is there something specific that leads you to consider his type as wrong? Why do you claim to know his type better than himself even if there is no strong evidence for this to be true?

Firstly, I didn't claim that Fe PoLR was completely incompatible with LokiVanguard's behaviour. I was merely stating the possibility (someone with supposedly strong Ne should be able to recognise this) that he is in fact better in Fe than Te. To be completely honest, my reason for claiming that he may not be an SLI is the dryness of his tone. Dryness comes with lack of Fe. Find me a dry Fe ego person.

This is not a fallacy because it is an error in assumptions and not reasoning. Secondly, go back and take a closer look at the way socionics defines E-I as a dichotomy.

I have done. Socionics.us does not define Extraversion as outgoing and sociable, and Introversion as quiet and reserved.

Neither socionics say that it is a central feature of the type, for the matter. In fact, it's this forum's view of that has been highly skewed towards purely a pursuit of power rather than simply impact in the world. In fact, the vast russian literature on socionics provides different points of view on the matter, and the most consistent opinion seem to be towards the EJ temperament to be the most power-orientated rather than EP-Se. Thus, your point could or could not be right; at its best, it is only a partial explanation, as much as MBTI is a partial explanation. Again, you cannot dispute this because I am not creating an argument but rather simply stating the way things are.

Here you're using an assumption as a foundation, and making claims based on said foundations. It's called affirming the consequent.

So how all of this you say ties into a logically consistent discourse? If socionics defines types (for you) according to functional blocks, and Kersey descriptions are closer to socionics, yet socionics in terms of function is closer to MBTI...how do you square the circle, so to speak?

Why, how does socionics define types for you? Not according to function? My oh my, you're becoming Phaedrus.

Allow me to explain my reasoning with utmost caution and wonder on this marvellous day in January, whereby an incompetent fool is attempting to fuel my mind with the most pitiful images of illogic and foul reasoning on my part. Bah, humbug! What's so logically inconsistent about socionics being closest to KTT descriptively, and to MBTT functionally?

Augusta might have diverged, but she was descibing exactly the same phenomenon as Jung was, [correct] given that the types are exactly the same and the same are also the functions. [I seriously don't know how you can make that claim]

Jung based on astrology? What? Where?

In a subsequent follow-up letter, Jung wrote Freud that his (Jung's) evenings were currently being taken up largely with astrology and the calculating of horoscopes: "in order to find a clue to the core of human psychology."

-http://thezodiac.com/astrojung2.htm

Astrology is one of the intuitive methods like the I Ching, geomantics, and other divinatory procedures. It is based upon the synchronicity principle, i.e. meaningful coincidence. ... Astrology is a naively projected psychology in which the different attitudes and temperaments of man are represented as gods and identified with planets and zodiacal constellations.

-C.G. Jung

So which one does well? Jung is worse than Augusta, but Augusta is still bad because it twists from a twist of Jung.

Clearly you didn't read what I said. Just because Augusta's foundations are shaky doesn't mean her theory is invalidated. Just because she saw different phenomena to Jung doesn't mean everything much match up perfectly in both theories. What's to say that Jung was, using his intuition, partly right, and that Augusta just got it spot on with her Ti, something Jung, as an EIE (correct me if I'm wrong), lacked?

Nobody has ever claimed that MBTI Ti=Si, but rather that MBTI Ti is equal to creative Te in socionics. Again, this is not something disputable, simply because INTPs and ISTPs share Ti dominance in MBTI and share Te creative in socionics. You can give all the explanation you want but they will not change this simple fact of objective reality.

Dogmatism again. There is no reason why the above claim is indisputable.

I like your explanation because it gives the volitional part as one of the possible consequences of exercising one's . In my opinion, it is only one of them; probably the most evident in social terms and this is why socionics has lent itself more to a narrower focus in this precise subset of the whole.

Explain the rest of the ways in which Se can be exercised. And provide sources to socionists (not Jung, he is not a socionist. Not Myers-Briggs, they are not socionists. Not Phaedrus, he is not a socionist) who have made claims that Se is more than about will, mobilisation and power dynamics in both oneself and others, and about external characteristics of every object in the world.

For how some russian schools have consensus on EJ being the most likely to aim for leadership, take how on socioniko.net they are defined as being the linear-pushy group, or how in terms of occupational advice they are prescribed towards leadership. In any case I don't think that EJs either are any more inclined than EPs to pursue leadership, but rather that we shouldn't narrow too much down a typing based on the fact that a person likes or dislikes leadershipp...

I think ability to lead is definitely type-related. I don't think every type can lead well. Our job is to find out which types can lead well, and what they all have in common which makes them lead well.

I think force my hand is an ENTj, and I think there Winterpark and LokiVanguard are similar, even if Wintepark has a more reserved vibe.

And I think you are regally taking the piss.

[Phaedrus]

You're an idiot, Phaedrus.

Maybe. But you still don't get FDG's explanation.

Not always. When will you understand that?

What do you mean by "not always"? Of course the LSI descriptions always describe the same group of people as the ISTJ descriptions are trying to describe. Whether real life people identify themselves in those descriptions is another matter. That depends of a lot of things, for example if they can view themselves objectively as they really are or not.

Consider your own self image again. You seem to identify with MBTT descriptions of J behaviour, but you also identify with descriptions of irrational behaviour in Socionics, since you identify with SLE (unless you have changed your mind again). Those two facts are not compatible, you know. One of them must represent a false image of you. I don't know which one is incorrect, but one is.

I stated a fact, based on what I've read.

Me too ...

You, Fabio and Ashton have directed me towards Jung's original descriptions. I can honestly say that Jung's Se is nothing like socionics Se.

And what about his types? What does Jung say about the types, which is what I have repeatedly insisted that you should focus on instead of the functions? And what does Jung say about rational versus irrational behaviour? How does that correlate with rationality and irrationality in Socionics and in MBTT? Have you ever thought about that?

So because I disagree with Fabio and because he agrees with you, I don't understand. Is that what you're implying?

No, that is not what I am implying. You don't understand. Period. And that fact has nothing to do with whether FDG understands or not. But from what he writes I can tell that he in fact understands. And if you understood, you would agree with him.

So this is how you want to play. Don't even try talking about formal logic.

Hmm ... This could actually become interesting ...

[FDG]

dogmatism

Listen. Am I being dogmatic if we're both standing next to a rock and I point out "that's a rock", you say "no, that's grass", and I keep saying "that's a rock"? I doubt it. It's you refusing to acknowledge reality. MBTI Ti must be socionics Te-creative because MBTI Ti dominance types have Te creative in socionics. ALWAYS, since there are only two types for which this is valid (ISTP and INTP) and the accuracy is 100%.

[Expat]

MBTI Ti must be socionics Te-creative because MBTI Ti dominance types have Te creative in socionics. ALWAYS, since there are only two types for which this is valid (ISTP and INTP) and the accuracy is 100%.

Let's check if we agree on the assumptions this statement is made:

In MBTI:

ISTP = Introverted Thinking + Extroverted Sensing
INTP = Introverted Thinking + Extroverted Intuition

In Socionics: SLI = and ILI =

If you say that creative equals MBTI's dominant Introverted Thinking 100%, you are assuming that:

1) ISTP = SLI and INTP=ILI - always

Now the problems with this assumption are these (to start):

2) Then you are also saying, indirectly, that dominant equals MBTI's Extraverted Sensing as Auxiliary function
3) that dominant equals MBTI's Extraverted Intuiton as Auxiliary function

If neither (2) nor (3) are correct, then, the conclusion that creative is equal to dominant Introverted Thinking gets much more complicated, especially if (1) is true.

But the problem with (2) and (3) is that then you are essentially shaping functional definitions to fit the conclusions. Since MBTI does not seem to have a consistent system of functions - especially if you move them to Auxiliary positions - it is possible to assert that, say, auxiliary Extraverted Intuition corresponds to dominant . But that seems to me a self-serving assertion, aimed only at justifying the original assumption (1).

From this point of view, I prefer even Phaedrus's own "psychology", which, last time I checked, even while concluding that ISTP = SLI, prefers to avoid the issue of trying to make sense of Myers-Briggs's own functional definitions, concluding - rightly IMO - that they are so convoluted as to be essentially rubbish.

To put it another way: if you look at the functional definitions themselves - apart from how the types correlate - does it really make sense that creative equals dominant Introverted Thinking? I doubt it.

[mm]

Uh, I thought there was consensus on MBTI being confusing and a liiitle bit of a mess, so, are you now fighting about who understands the mess best? That's a title you can be reeally proud of I'm sure...

[Expat]

Uh, I thought there was consensus on MBTI being confusing and a liiitle bit of a mess, so, are you now fighting about who understands the mess best? That's a title you can be reeally proud of I'm sure...

Oh, I agree that, as a theory including functions, etc, Myers-Briggs is a total mess. My point was to demonstrate that, even if you assume it isn't, there are problems, especially if you try to make 1:1 correlations of its functions with socionics'.

[Expat]

You, Fabio and Ashton have directed me towards Jung's original descriptions. I can honestly say that Jung's Se is nothing like socionics Se.

Indeed, if you read what Jung actually wrote on his Extraverted Sensing type, and then read what Augusta and pretty much all the other "classical" socionists have written on , I can't see how the two can be seen as identical.

Now, obviously, some socionics types may well behave, sometimes, in ways like what Jung described. But it's not the same as saying that that is the essence of the type.

Just because Augusta's foundations are shaky doesn't mean her theory is invalidated. Just because she saw different phenomena to Jung doesn't mean everything much match up perfectly in both theories. What's to say that Jung was, using his intuition, partly right, and that Augusta just got it spot on with her Ti, something Jung, as an EIE (correct me if I'm wrong), lacked?

I don't think it's necessary to even speculate on Jung's own type. Reading what he wrote, to me is clear that, by observing individuals, he noticed fundamental differences in their psychology and he spotted what the functions were more or less about. Augusta thought that Jung's observations had a lot of truth to them but also that they did not quite fit her own observations of couples, so she modified Jung's descriptions even as she built upon them. This kind of stuff happens on science - any kind of science - all the time.

[FDG]

Let's check if we agree on the assumptions this statement is made:

In MBTI:

ISTP = Introverted Thinking + Extroverted Sensing
INTP = Introverted Thinking + Extroverted Intuition

In Socionics: SLI = and ILI =

If you say that creative equals MBTI's dominant Introverted Thinking 100%, you are assuming that:

1) ISTP = SLI and INTP=ILI - always

Now the problems with this assumption are these (to start):

2) Then you are also saying, indirectly, that dominant equals MBTI's Extraverted Sensing as Auxiliary function

Yes, definitely, since both ISTP and ISFP share the functions in both systems. It cannot be simply the byproduct of a case. I think that probably myers-briggs wanted to give common ground to the SP as a group, perhaps.

3) that dominant equals MBTI's Extraverted Intuiton as Auxiliary function

That's true, too, since INTP and INFP share the functions in MBTI and also socionics. Now if an INFj mistypes hirself as INFP, that's another story. But a Fi-Ne mixture by MBTI standards is equal more or less to a Ni-Fe mixture in socionics standards (given also that Fi dominance is shared by the two Fe creative types, respectively in myers-briggs and socionics). So on...

But the problem with (2) and (3) is that then you are essentially shaping functional definitions to fit the conclusions. Since MBTI does not seem to have a consistent system of functions - especially if you move them to Auxiliary positions - it is possible to assert that, say, auxiliary Extraverted Intuition corresponds to dominant . But that seems to me a self-serving assertion, aimed only at justifying the original assumption (1).

Uhm, okay, but why is aimed at justifying something? It's simply the way it is, imho. I am not even speaking about functional descriptions, simply functional preferences. Functional descriptions in MBTI are all different one from the other, so I think they are basically useless (I also think that this "problem" stems directly from the fact that socionics ordering of functions is correct, and MBTI's wrong, thus they have to produce ad-hoc modifications such as the P-J switch for introverts).

From this point of view, I prefer even Phaedrus's own "psychology", which, last time I checked, even while concluding that ISTP = SLI, prefers to avoid the issue of trying to make sense of Myers-Briggs's own functional definitions, concluding - rightly IMO - that they are so convoluted as to be essentially rubbish.

To put it another way: if you look at the functional definitions themselves - apart from how the types correlate - does it really make sense that creative equals dominant Introverted Thinking? I doubt it.

Yeah, I am only speaking about types and their functional preferences, not about the functional descrptions.

[Expat]

Functional descriptions in MBTI are all different one from the other, so I think they are basically useless (I also think that this "problem" stems directly from the fact that socionics ordering of functions is correct, and MBTI's wrong,

That I fully agree with (not necessarily with the rest, but never mind). MBTI's functional descriptions - at least those I have seen - make no sense; they are modified to fit the particular type that happens to be described. Socionics also modifies them, true, but I think they remain recognizably the same functions.

But then I don't understand why you even went to the trouble of saying that "creative Te in socionics equals Ti in MBTI", because you seem to be saying, rightly IMO, that it makes no sense to focus on MBTI's functions. Unless you were just reinforcing the point that ISTP = SLI, but, again, I see no need to bring MBTI's functions into the discussion at all.

What I do think, though, is this (and it's more to the point):

Unlike MBTI, Socionics defines types according to their functional use. They are so defined, because it is an essential characteristic of socionics types to prefer some functions over others, sharing that characteristic with the members of the same quadra.

So, in socionics, a is a person who craves and therefore will naturally gravitate to people who use rather than . A person who may appear, on the surface, to be an ESFP but who is obviously repelled by people using and is simply not an in socionics, even if all the MBTI especialists in the world say that the person is ESFP.

Because in socionics, yes, it is the functions that define, and make, the type. That's what even holds the system together.

[Phaedrus]

Because in socionics, yes, it is the functions that define, and make, the type.

I don't dispute that. However, also the four dimensions (scales) define the type in Socionics, because if you have you are necessarily an ENTj, and if you are an extraverted logical and intuitive rational type, that is if you are an ENTj, you necessarily have in your ego block. The four scales logically imply your functions ordering, and your functions ordering logically imply which type you are according to the four dimensions. That is also true for the types in MBTT.

[Ezra]

Maybe. But you still don't get FDG's explanation.

Fabio's explanation is basically a summary of what you think. He has corrected my misinterpretations.

What do you mean by "not always"? Of course the LSI descriptions always describe the same group of people as the ISTJ descriptions are trying to describe. Whether real life people identify themselves in those descriptions is another matter. That depends of a lot of things, for example if they can view themselves objectively as they really are or not.

What I'm suggesting is that you could easily find, for example, an ESTJ who is an LSI. The functions in each theory are described differently, so just because one is a Ti base in socionics doesn't mean they're Ti dominant in MBTT. Te in MBTT is rife with (what is described in socionics as) Ti and Se, as well as Te.

Consider your own self image again. You seem to identify with MBTT descriptions of J behaviour, but you also identify with descriptions of irrational behaviour in Socionics, since you identify with SLE (unless you have changed your mind again).

Right, Phaedrus, do me a favour, and outline Irrational behaviour again. In fact, go one step further, and show me where I've identified with any aspects of Irrationality.

The reason I identify with the SLE is not from a temperamental (EP) or club (ST) description, as I could easily be an NT and an EJ based on that. It's from the perspective of functional description. I readily identify with both the socionics.us and the wikisocion descriptions of Se leading. It sums my character up perfectly.

And what about his types?

Jung didn't have any types. He described some functions he sees evident in people.

What does Jung say about the types, which is what I have repeatedly insisted that you should focus on instead of the functions?

Why should I give a shit about Jung? I'm studying socionics, not Jung. The derivations are meaningless; the content is what matters. Augusta's content. Thus, functions are the pinnacle of socionics. If you are disregarding them, I'm not surprised we're debating correlations, because we arguing completely different theories. I'm arguing from a socionical perspective, and I don't know where you're arguing from.

And what does Jung say about rational versus irrational behaviour?

I don't know. Please tell me.

How does that correlate with rationality and irrationality in Socionics and in MBTT? Have you ever thought about that?

No, to be honest. Perhaps you'd like to summarise it for me.

And if you understood, you would agree with him.

Of course if I understood and agreed with the way you think I'd agree with him.

Listen. Am I being dogmatic if we're both standing next to a rock and I point out "that's a rock", you say "no, that's grass", and I keep saying "that's a rock"? I doubt it. It's you refusing to acknowledge reality. MBTI Ti must be socionics Te-creative because MBTI Ti dominance types have Te creative in socionics. ALWAYS, since there are only two types for which this is valid (ISTP and INTP) and the accuracy is 100%.

Can I just say I love the way you quoted "dogmatism" and nothing else.

Fabio, I think this is just a case of misunderstanding. Obviously, if you apply Phaedrus' logic, MBTT dominant Ti = socionics creative Te, and a variety of other things. But I disagree.

Unlike MBTI, Socionics defines types according to their functional use. They are so defined, because it is an essential characteristic of socionics types to prefer some functions over others, sharing that characteristic with the members of the same quadra.

So, in socionics, a is a person who craves and therefore will naturally gravitate to people who use rather than . A person who may appear, on the surface, to be an ESFP but who is obviously repelled by people using and is simply not an in socionics, even if all the MBTI especialists in the world say that the person is ESFP.

Because in socionics, yes, it is the functions that define, and make, the type. That's what even holds the system together.

And this, Phaedrus, is why you misunderstand so much. You pretty much fuck the functions up the ass, instead preferring Jungian functions, which are not the same as socionics functions.

[Phaedrus]

What I'm suggesting is that you could easily find, for example, an ESTJ who is an LSI.

That is a logical contradiction, because you cannot have an extraverted leading function and an introverted leading function at the same time. The ESTJ is an extraverted type, the LSI is an introverted type. I don't find it easy at all to find such a creature. Where are they? Are they staying at Hegel's Inn?

The functions in each theory are described differently, so just because one is a Ti base in socionics doesn't mean they're Ti dominant in MBTT.

Haven't you noticed that we agree on that?

Te in MBTT is rife with (what is described in socionics as) Ti and Se, as well as Te.

Yes, you could say that. And it's probably because of the reasons that have been explained by Expat. The functional descriptions -- in both MBTT and Socionics -- are written to reflect the real life behaviours and attitudes of the types. So, must invent a functional explanation that fits the definitions of the functions, and if the defintions are different you will inevitably end up with the same kind of behaviour being attributed to different functions and different places in the psyche of each type.

Right, Phaedrus, do me a favour, and outline Irrational behaviour again. In fact, go one step further, and show me where I've identified with any aspects of Irrationality.

It's very simple. You claim to be an SLE. Every SLE is an irrational/perceiveing type. You also claim to be an EJ type (ENTJ or ESTJ -- I don't care which) in MBTT. Every EXTJ is a rational/judging type. So, you both claim to be a rational type and an irrational type at the same time, which is a logical contradiction.

The reason I identify with the SLE is not from a temperamental (EP) or club (ST) description, as I could easily be an NT and an EJ based on that.

But you can't be both, and you cannot choose which temperament or which club to belong to. If you don't identify with the EP temperament and the ST club you dismiss a defining part of what it is like to be an SLE. You cannot have EJ temperament or be an NT if you are an SLE, because that leads to a logical contradiction.

It's from the perspective of functional description. I readily identify with both the socionics.us and the wikisocion descriptions of Se leading. It sums my character up perfectly.

That means that you either do not have EJ temperament and is not an NT, or you shouldn't identify with Se leading.

Jung didn't have any types. He described some functions he sees evident in people.

... ... hmm ... well ... (Don't try that kind of bluff in poker, Ezra. I honestly don't think that you would get away with it ... not even at the lowest stakes ...)

I don't know. Please tell me.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

No, to be honest. Perhaps you'd like to summarise it for me.

They are the same. Irrational behaviour according to Jung is the same phenomenon as irrational behaviour according to Socionics, and it is also the same phenomenon as perceing (P) behaviour in MBTT and Keirsey. And the same goes of course for rational behaviour in those four models.

And this, Phaedrus, is why you misunderstand so much. You pretty much fuck the functions up the ass, instead preferring Jungian functions, which are not the same as socionics functions.

Do you really think, Ezra, that anything of what Expat says in that passage contradicts what I have said about the types and the models? In that case you should read it again. And if that doesn't help, read it a third time.

[Ezra]

That is a logical contradiction, because you cannot have an extraverted leading function and an introverted leading function at the same time. The ESTJ is an extraverted type, the LSI is an introverted type. I don't find it easy at all to find such a creature. Where are they? Are they staying at Hegel's Inn?

The ESTJ is an Extraverted type in socionics. The LSI is an Introverted type in MBTT.

Haven't you noticed that we agree on that?

Okay, try this. Replace Ti in that sentence with 'Te'. Do we still agree?

Yes, you could say that. And it's probably because of the reasons that have been explained by Expat. The functional descriptions -- in both MBTT and Socionics -- are written to reflect the real life behaviours and attitudes of the types. So, must invent a functional explanation that fits the definitions of the functions, and if the defintions are different you will inevitably end up with the same kind of behaviour being attributed to different functions and different places in the psyche of each type.

Okay. Now I'm beginning to understand your mentality.

It's very simple. You claim to be an SLE. Every SLE is an irrational/perceiveing type. You also claim to be an EJ type (ENTJ or ESTJ -- I don't care which) in MBTT. Every EXTJ is a rational/judging type. So, you both claim to be a rational type and an irrational type at the same time, which is a logical contradiction.

That's not what I asked. I asked you to give me examples of how I've identified with aspects of Irrationality, not simply tell me that I claim to be an SLE in socionics, and Judging in MBTT. I know that.

But you can't be both, and you cannot choose which temperament or which club to belong to. If you don't identify with the EP temperament and the ST club you dismiss a defining part of what it is like to be an SLE. You cannot have EJ temperament or be an NT if you are an SLE, because that leads to a logical contradiction.

Defining? Hardly. You have your priorities wrong, Phaedrus. Completely wrong. You care about the clubs and temperaments more than you do the functions.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

So, essentially, the Jungian types are a function. In Jung's theory of types, you can be one of eight functions. Great. Cheers for that.

They are the same. Irrational behaviour according to Jung is the same phenomenon as irrational behaviour according to Socionics, and it is also the same phenomenon as perceing (P) behaviour in MBTT and Keirsey. And the same goes of course for rational behaviour in those four models.

I give up on you and your theory.

Do you really think, Ezra, that anything of what Expat says in that passage contradicts what I have said about the types and the models?

Yes. Expat cares about the functions and their relationships with other functions (when blocked together to form a personality) more than anything in socionics, because they are socionics. You couldn't give a shit about functions.

[FDG]

The ESTJ is an Extraverted type in socionics. The LSI is an Introverted type in MBTT.

Let's clarify what you exactly mean here and I am sure Phaedrus will agree with you: there can be such a thing as a person that tests ESTJ in MBTI and is also LSI in socionics. This obviously means that MBTI testing is not necessarily correct.

However, if you mean that there is such a thing as a person that identifies with the ESTJ description in MBTI and identifies with the LSI description in socionics, that I am less likely to believe to be true.

[Expat]

Let's clarify what you exactly mean here and I am sure Phaedrus will agree with you: there can be such a thing as a person that tests ESTJ in MBTI and is also LSI in socionics. This obviously means that MBTI testing is not necessarily correct.

However, if you mean that there is such a thing as a person that identifies with the ESTJ description in MBTI and identifies with the LSI description in socionics, that I am less likely to believe to be true.

Whenever I see this kind of argument, I feel compelled to remember something Rocky and I mentioned long ago, and the point of which Phaedrus totally missed, but I will try again.

At the present level of knowledge, we have no "direct" way of determining someone's type, by brain scans or whatever, even if they turn out to be biologically determined.

So, at the moment, we don't have "ready-made" groups of people.

What I mean is this. Please compare the two situations:

1) Some divine entity - or technology not yet available - selects 1600 individuals and divides them into 16 groups of 100 people, each according to the correct "biological" socionics type. So, by "definition", those 16 groups are perfect, and all we need to do is identify which group is which type - in socionics and/or MBTT.

2) We, human beings, start with the 1600 individuals, and we must divide them into the 16 groups ourselves, as best as we can - and then identify them according to MBTT and socionics.

First point: is it not obvious that it is extremely unlikely that the 16 groups in situation (2) are going to be exactly the same as in situation (1), no matter how much effort we put into it?

Second point: discussion on whether or not LSI = ISTJ can only be clear-cut in situation (1). In that hypothetical situation, having to choose from amongst 16 existing groups, I will grant that probably the group identified as "LSI" by socionists will be the same as the one identified as "ISTJ" by MBTT people.

However, what we have in real life is situation (2). It makes no sense to pretend that situation (1) exists - which is what Phaedrus indirectly does. We have to start with real people, and depending on what we are looking at - whether you call that "criteria" or "typing method" or whatever - if you use socionics criteria, looking at functions, you will arrive at a group of 100 "LSIs" that will be different from the a group of 100 "ISTJs" arrived at by MBTT people - heck, different socionists will arrive at different groups.

So, the way to minimize the differences is to make, yes, your criteria, or typing method, as close to the core definitions of the types as possible. Socionics types are primarily defined as people who show functions in particular order of preferential use, and that is most easily observable by their interaction with others. The very notion of (say) is not separable from being something that SLEs naturally use, IEIs love in others, and EIIs dislike in others. If you go for Jung's Extraverted Sensing type, I wonder, then, what is it about it that EIIs and LIIs would dislike in others so much.

That is socionics. Temperaments, the 4 dichotomies, etc, may help you to find the type, but they are already a bit indirect. Maybe a person who craves will, for whatever reason, behave more like EJ than EP, both in his self-perception and that of others - even as still being an EP by definition. In such cases - that is, when you're still trying to divide people into the 16 groups of 100 - you have to think about what it is that really makes the type, and what is a secondary manifestation of it.

[Phaedrus]

Whenever I see this kind of argument, I feel compelled to remember something Rocky and I mentioned long ago, and the point of which Phaedrus totally missed, but I will try again.

I didn't miss your point. However, trying to explain my points to you and Rocky was almost as difficult as it is now to explain things to Ezra. That seems to be the common scenario when what you are trying to explain cannot be understood by the other person(s) until they have gained the necessary previous knowledge to understand your explanation.

Rocky's and Expat's perspective and understanding was (and probably still is) based on a descriptive theory of names (along the lines of Russell and others), which is a mistake for the reasons pointed out by Kripke. It should be replaced by a causal theory of names (along Kripkean lines), which is what my arguments are based on. If you don't understand Kripke's causal theory of reference, you cannot understand my arguments properly. As we have seen over and over again, for example lately with Ezra, people continue to miss the point and/or misunderstand what I am claiming, and the reason is most often because they are "trapped" in a descriptive theory of name paradigm.

At the present level of knowledge, we have no "direct" way of determining someone's type, by brain scans or whatever, even if they turn out to be biologically determined.

So, at the moment, we don't have "ready-made" groups of people.

And that means that at this point we don't know exactly what we mean by names like "LSI" and "LIE", etc. We don't know their exact meaning, but we still use them -- correctly -- to refer to that person, and that person, etc.

What I mean is this. Please compare the two situations:

1) Some divine entity - or technology not yet available - selects 1600 individuals and divides them into 16 groups of 100 people, each according to the correct "biological" socionics type. So, by "definition", those 16 groups are perfect, and all we need to do is identify which group is which type - in socionics and/or MBTT.

2) We, human beings, start with the 1600 individuals, and we must divide them into the 16 groups ourselves, as best as we can - and then identify them according to MBTT and socionics.

First point: is it not obvious that it is extremely unlikely that the 16 groups in situation (2) are going to be exactly the same as in situation (1), no matter how much effort we put into it?

No, it isn't. What is unlikely is that we have managed to type all of the 1600 people correctly according to our own criteria in Socionics and/or MBTT. Some of them are probably mistyped by socionists and MBTT typologists.

Second point: discussion on whether or not LSI = ISTJ can only be clear-cut in situation (1). In that hypothetical situation, having to choose from amongst 16 existing groups, I will grant that probably the group identified as "LSI" by socionists will be the same as the one identified as "ISTJ" by MBTT people.

Good. Then we agree on the most important point.

However, what we have in real life is situation (2). It makes no sense to pretend that situation (1) exists - which is what Phaedrus indirectly does. We have to start with real people, and depending on what we are looking at - whether you call that "criteria" or "typing method" or whatever - if you use socionics criteria, looking at functions, you will arrive at a group of 100 "LSIs" that will be different from the a group of 100 "ISTJs" arrived at by MBTT people - heck, different socionists will arrive at different groups.

The mistake in reasoning Expat is making here will become clear to those who manage to understand Kripke's causal theory of reference. Simply put, Expat (and others) are confusing identity and method. They will perhaps arrive at different typings because of using different typing methods and/or lack of competence, but that fact doesn't change reality.

[FDG]

Priebke? Priebke was a nazi!!!

[Ezra]

Let's clarify what you exactly mean here and I am sure Phaedrus will agree with you: there can be such a thing as a person that tests ESTJ in MBTI and is also LSI in socionics. This obviously means that MBTI testing is not necessarily correct.

Agreed.

However, if you mean that there is such a thing as a person that identifies with the ESTJ description in MBTI and identifies with the LSI description in socionics, that I am less likely to believe to be true.

Why? Take me for example. I look at ISTJ, and I think 'what the fuck'. I look at a functional description of an LSI, and I think this could work.

lol @ u fabio.

He said Kripke, not Priebke.

[FDG]

Sigh, I was obviously joking.

[Ezra]

...














lol @ u fabio

[Expat]

I did read Phaedrus's post.

Can someone explain to me why is it necessary to refer to something like Kripke etc? Is there anything so obscure in the - to me - plain reasoning I used that requires "appealling" to outsiders?

Ti super-id, anyone?

[Ezra]

Phaedrus sees it as backing up his point with firm evidence.

[Expat]

Phaedrus sees it as backing up his point with firm evidence.

But that's not evidence. It's more like borrowing some supposedly structured concept from someone else. Which is, by the way, what Phaedrus tends to assume others do. Ever notice how he tends to assume that you're (and others) are just parroting me rather than think for yourself?

[aestrivex]

Second point: discussion on whether or not LSI = ISTJ can only be clear-cut in situation (1). In that hypothetical situation, having to choose from amongst 16 existing groups, I will grant that probably the group identified as "LSI" by socionists will be the same as the one identified as "ISTJ" by MBTT people.

not true across the board. if you go by the descriptions of MBTI types (which phaedrus says are more important than functions), you will have enormous difficulty finding any kind of realistic correlation between INFP/IEI or INTJ/LII or ISFJ/ESI, etc. the person described by ISFJ descriptions is clearly not the same person, generally, as FiSe.

ISTJs and LSIs do often, but not always, generally represent the same types of people. but this sort of thing can become extremely muddled.

[Expat]

ISTJs and LSIs do often, but not always, generally represent the same types of people. but this sort of thing can become extremely muddled.

I agree with that. I'm not sure if you understood the precise nature of the situations (1) and (2) I described.

[aestrivex]

i think i do.

[Expat]

i think i do.

Okay, so if you had a group of 100 people that are true socionics LSIs, and another group of 100 people who are all true socionics ESIs - all typed and grouped by, say, The Most Divine and Mighty High Leprechaun of Cork - and if MBTI specialists were asked to choose which group they would call ISTJ and which one they would call ISFJ, you think they might get confused?

[Phaedrus]

Okay, so if you had a group of 100 people that are true socionics LSIs, and another group of 100 people who are all true socionics ESIs - all typed and grouped by, say, The Most Divine and Mighty High Leprechaun of Cork - and if MBTI specialists were asked to choose which group they would call ISTJ and which one they would call ISFJ, you think they might get confused?

Some of them would probably be confused, and so would some socionists. The situation in MBTT is no different from the situation in Socionics. In neither system can a socionist or an MBTT specialist be 100 % sure that they have typed all of those 200 people correctly.

In the described scenario you assume that 100 people are, as a matter of fact, ESIs, that they "are all true socionics ESIs", and that 100 people "are true socionics LSIs". And if that is true, it is logically necessary that every person in the group of ESIs is an ISFJ and that every person in the group of LSIs is an ISTJ. But neither we, nor the MBTT specialists, can know for sure that all of the ESIs/ISFJs really are ESIs/ISFJs and that all of the LSIs/ISTJs really are LSIs/ISTJs, because there is always a slight chance (even if that chance may be almost zero) that at least one of them is incorrectly typed.

[Ezra]

But that's not evidence. It's more like borrowing some supposedly structured concept from someone else. Which is, by the way, what Phaedrus tends to assume others do. Ever notice how he tends to assume that you're (and others) are just parroting me rather than think for yourself?

It's worse with socionix. They believe I see you as the equivalent of their Ashton.

not true across the board. if you go by the descriptions of MBTI types (which phaedrus says are more important than functions), you will have enormous difficulty finding any kind of realistic correlation between INFP/IEI or INTJ/LII or ISFJ/ESI, etc. the person described by ISFJ descriptions is clearly not the same person, generally, as FiSe.

Absolutely. I completely agree. Firstly, to borrow from Expat's example, IEIs tend not to have a straightforward MBTT equivalent. On top of this, he showed how IEI does not equal INFJ or INFP, nor does EII equal either of them either.

And why is it that just two of eighteen LII socionists, when presented with MBTT descriptions, identified most with INTJ? To Phaedrus, sixteen socionists are incorrect. In my eyes, they are referring to different groups of people. In fact, five thought ILI, five thought IEI, and six thought ILE. Likewise, four of the SLE socionists fitted INTJ best. And it's very easy to see why if you read descriptions of INTJs. And what about ENTJs? Over 30% of the 108 socionists who took part in the experiment said SLE correlated best with LIE. Most interesting was that the same percentage of socionists (25%) thought that the ENTJ correlated best with LIE and LSI. Out of seven socionists, not one said they were most like the LIE. Two (and if I'd been included in this test, it would've been three) ENTJs, said that SLE fit them best. And three even said ILI fit them best! What does this do to the temperament theory? Clearly IP and EJ mean fuck all when it comes to MBTT. It shows that even the typing methods in each theory are different!

I present hard facts, Phaedrus. Interpretations of professionals they may be, but you present fuck all.

[Phaedrus]

Firstly, to borrow from Expat's example, IEIs tend not to have a straightforward MBTT equivalent. On top of this, he showed how IEI does not equal INFJ or INFP, nor does EII equal either of them either.

But the question remains: is Expat's analysis really conclusive and 100 % correct, or is it possible that some of his premises or conclusions are wrong? We know (or at least I know) that Expat has come to false conclusions about people's types, and those mistypings seem to be the result of false assumptions based on a too narrow focus on only one quite unreliable typing method. So how do we know that he is not making the same kind of mistakes in his analysis this time? How can you tell that for sure, Ezra?

And niffweed is very clearly wrong (and you too if you agree with his statement) when he claims that "the person described by ISFJ descriptions is clearly not the same person, generally, as FiSe". It is indisputable that every true ISFJ is a in Socionics and therefore an ESI, and also that every ESI/ISFJ is a Protector Guardian in Keirsey's model. I think that even Expat probably agrees with that.

For every one of the introverted sensory types there is nothing to argue about -- they are all describing the exact same type in all three models. I agree with you that the same clear-cut ABCD=ABCd correlation is more clouded when it comes to the introverted N types, but we should not automatically assume that therefore it doesn't exist there too.

And why is it that just two of eighteen LII socionists, when presented with MBTT descriptions, identified most with INTJ?

Because the socionists (as mentioned by Lytov) we unfamiliar with MBTT type descriptions. They read them without previous knowledge and training, and they were probably confused by the mess in the MBTT descriptions that is caused by their incorrect functional theory. It would be absurd to assume that they, with their limited knowledge, should be able to correctly identify the correct type based on type descriptions only, not to mention the fact that most of them are not very good at reading Socionics type descriptions either.

What does this do to the temperament theory? Clearly IP and EJ mean fuck all when it comes to MBTT. It shows that even the typing methods in each theory are different!

It means that the socionists are bad at typing based on type descriptions and that you are drawing the wrong conclusions. The "temperaments" EJ, IJ, EP, and IP are very clearly exactly the same in Socionics and MBTT. It is ridiculous to deny that, and those who still do can't have read MBTT descriptions of those temperaments.

It is extremely irritating that people like you systematically refuse to study the material that has been written on the subject you claim to be an expert on. Either you haven't studied MBTT or you have forgotten or misunderstood what you have read. It's all there, go to the books and articles and see for yourself. The MBTT manuals describe these groups too. Compare the descriptions and you will see that they are talking about the same thing.

[Expat]

It's worse with socionix. They believe I see you as the equivalent of their Ashton.

Now let's analyze this a bit (going slightly off-topic).

They are taking for granted that if you agree with me, it's because you're blindly following me. The idea that you might have just seen for yourself what makes sense or not simply does not register.

Now, what does it tell about the psychology of those who assume that that's what you're doing?

ETA: And of course, implying that I am "Ashton's equivalent" here is about one of the most insulting ideas I can conceive of, at least in the context of this forum.

And why is it that just two of eighteen LII socionists, when presented with MBTT descriptions, identified most with INTJ? To Phaedrus, sixteen socionists are incorrect. In my eyes, they are referring to different groups of people. In fact, five thought ILI, five thought IEI, and six thought ILE. Likewise, four of the SLE socionists fitted INTJ best. And it's very easy to see why if you read descriptions of INTJs. And what about ENTJs? Over 30% of the 108 socionists who took part in the experiment said SLE correlated best with LIE. Most interesting was that the same percentage of socionists (25%) thought that the ENTJ correlated best with LIE and LSI. Out of seven socionists, not one said they were most like the LIE. Two (and if I'd been included in this test, it would've been three) ENTJs, said that SLE fit them best. And three even said ILI fit them best! What does this do to the temperament theory? Clearly IP and EJ mean fuck all when it comes to MBTT. It shows that even the typing methods in each theory are different!

Obviously I agree with that, since I've raised this issue myself -- maybe even my situation (1) was too generous to the ABCD = ABCd idea.

[Ezra]

Now let's analyze this a bit (going slightly off-topic).

They are taking for granted that if you agree with me, it's because you're blindly following me. The idea that you might have just seen for yourself what makes sense or not simply does not register.

Now, what does it tell about the psychology of those who assume that that's what you're doing?

ETA: And of course, implying that I am "Ashton's equivalent" here is about one of the most insulting ideas I can conceive of, at least in the context of this forum.

To answer this, I'm gonna bring up something we discussed long ago. About discojoe sucking up to Joy because they were in a relationship. I was using ad hominem. And they're doing exactly the same thing.

And veering further off-topic, Expat, do you believe ad hominem is a Ti thing? I disagree that it is. Obviously Ti is concerned with logic, so they'd be good at it. You were talking about how I couldn't see how sickening this was to a Te ego by assuming something. Personally, I think Ti effective people would be the least likely to use the ad hominem argument. So, if not Ti, what function is it related to? Because it seemed as if you were estranging me from Te as much as possible, even though it's actually nothing to do with Te/Ti. Is it even related to functions?

[aestrivex]

Okay, so if you had a group of 100 people that are true socionics LSIs, and another group of 100 people who are all true socionics ESIs - all typed and grouped by, say, The Most Divine and Mighty High Leprechaun of Cork - and if MBTI specialists were asked to choose which group they would call ISTJ and which one they would call ISFJ, you think they might get confused?

yes, and here's why:

as i've said, LSI = ISTJ is not an entirely wrong correlation. there are some problems with it, but as MBTI = socionics correlations go, its ok. consequently, you'd get a pretty decent body of LSIs typed as ISTJ, correct as far as go the correlations.

ESI = ISFJ is terrible. going by MBTI descriptions from typelogic and the geocities site, ISFJs are much more similar to ESEs or SEIs than to ESIs. a lot of ESIs (especially ESI men) may appear to be a lot less effusive than the typical ISFJ.

what i think you'd get is a lot of ESIs, especially men, being called logical types. think about it this way: if you saw christopher hitchens and discojoe (assuming that discojoe is ESI, which i'm predominantly on the fence about) without knowing about socionics, would you see them as T > F types? especially per the Fe in ISFJs (which is actually described well as far as goes ). my inclination is to think that a lot of ESIs like that would look more serious and rational than an "introverted ESE" ISFJ.

[Expat]

what i think you'd get is a lot of ESIs, especially men, being called logical types. think about it this way: if you saw christopher hitchens and discojoe (assuming that discojoe is ESI, which i'm predominantly on the fence about) without knowing about socionics, would you see them as T > F types? especially per the Fe in ISFJs (which is actually described well as far as goes ). my inclination is to think that a lot of ESIs like that would look more serious and rational than an "introverted ESE" ISFJ.

I agree with that, still, not all ESIs are like that; and if they were already all grouped together, they might still, as a group, be seen as ISFJs rather than ISTJs - but never mind. The thing is, I agree with you actually; my situation (1) was proposed as the only situation where the correlation could work. Since situation (1) is not available, my final conclusion for the real world (my situation 2) is actually the same as yours.