Phaedrus' Psychology

[Ezra]

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?

It's possible.

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.

How can you tell that for sure, Phaedrus?

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?

Phaedrus, if you knew the first thing about arguing, you'd know that one can never be sure of anything. Yes, even you, Phaedrus, with your gut intuition working away like Joan of Arc with her vision-a-minute way of life.

We can't know that Expat is making the same kind of mistakes in his analysis this time. But, for the sake of getting simple points into your thick little dogma-ridden mind, we can assume it.

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.

If you reread an original point of his, you'll find that Expat would disagree with you, Phaedrus.

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.

And is your knowledge greater than theirs?

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.

Well, I am denying it. How can the temperaments of MBTT be the same of those in socionics? MBTT has adopted the Keirsey temperaments, which exchange ST and SF for SP and SJ. Which practically proves that there is more in common with STs in socionics than there are with all STs in KTT. Otherwise why didn't Augusta simply follow suit and exchange ST and SF for SP and SJ? Clearly she is implying that, for example, LSIs and LSEs are closer to each other than they are to ESIs and ESEs, which, taking your idea of ABCD = ABCd on board, makes no sense; ISTJ and ESTJ are closer to ISFJ and ESFJ; surely?

It is extremely irritating that people like you systematically refuse to face the facts of the subjects you claim to be an expert on. Either you haven't understood anything, or you're creating your own system out of the different components of each theory. It's staring you in the face. Each theory has its differences. Compare the descriptions and you will see that they are not necessarily talking about the same thing.

[Expat]

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?

I'm not sure. Perhaps .

[Expat]

Speaking of ad hominem, why that inclination on part of some people to use me as scapegoat? Ezra is not saying that something is true just because I say it is; he's using what I said as example to support his views, but he has arrived at them independently. I don't quite agree with much of what he says. Other people have similar views to myself regarding IEIs, ILIs, and Phaedrus - Logos for instance. Is anyone going to suggest that he also uses me as source for his views? Etc.

[Expat]

As per the quotes in Ezra's post, it's interesting to see that Phaedrus is dismissing the whole study by Lytov with his fit-all-purposes explanation: if someone reached different conclusions from himself, they have to be incompetent.

And what is a fact? Is it a "fact" now that most of those socionists aren't good in reading socionics descriptions?

[Phaedrus]

How can you tell that for sure, Phaedrus?

Because I have seen Expat's arguments and his case for why I (and some others) are most likely IEIs, and I know that that conclusion is false, because I know that I am not an IEI, and I also know that at least in my case he totally misinterpreted the data upon which his general argument was based.

If you reread an original point of his, you'll find that Expat would disagree with you, Phaedrus.

He would not -- unless he has changed his mind about it. He has rather clearly stated in some posts in the past that he sees ESIs and ISFJs as very similar based on type descriptions. It is obvious to every competent socionist that they are referring to the same group of people. And if you have read Lytov's introduction to Socionics you know that he also thinks so.

And is your knowledge greater than theirs?

On MBTT -- yes, certainly. On the aspects of general typology that focus on the similarities and differences between different models, such as MBTT, Socionics, Keirsey, and others -- yes, that too.

Well, I am denying it.

On what grounds. You haven't studied the subject, so you don't know what you are talking about. You are simply bluffing.

MBTT has adopted the Keirsey temperaments, which exchange ST and SF for SP and SJ. Which practically proves that there is more in common with STs in socionics than there are with all STs in KTT. Otherwise why didn't Augusta simply follow suit and exchange ST and SF for SP and SJ?

You should get spanked by SG for refusing to study the relevant written material, Ezra. MBTT talks about all sorts of groups, including Keirsey's temperaments. They describe the typical differences between STs, SFs, NTs, and NFs, for example in relation to how different type groups prefer information to be presented to them. They also talk about the differences between NPs and NJs, etc. You can group the 16 types in many different ways depending on what aspects of the types you are focusing on.

ISTJ and ESTJ are closer to ISFJ and ESFJ; surely?

Stupid reasoning. It all depends on your focus. Is an IEI closer to an ILI or to an SEI? Is the base function more relevant to compare than the creative function? We can choose which perspective to view the types from. In some respects the IEI is closer to the ILI, in some other respects the IEI is closer to the SEI, and in some other respects the IEI is closer to his NF cousins the Idealists/Humanitarians.

[FDG]

Speaking of ad hominem, why that inclination on part of some people to use me as scapegoat?

I think that might be the price to pay for being an authority on the matter

(not that I think it's right just thinking out loud)

[Expat]

Fine, but what seems to be happening is that some people assume that some views in socionics are just "my" views - presumably taken out of nowhere - and that those who (more or less) share those views are just blindly following me, presumably.

[Ezra]

I'm not sure. Perhaps .

But how would that explain Ashton, for example, who in his eyes has weak Se, and in your eyes has weak Se.

He has rather clearly stated in some posts in the past that he sees ESIs and ISFJs as very similar based on type descriptions.

That is not the same as what you claimed he stated.

It is obvious to every competent socionist that they are referring to the same group of people. And if you have read Lytov's introduction to Socionics you know that he also thinks so.

Well, obviously not, because he states that they're different!

But at least we know now for sure that socionics, MBTT and Keirsey, in spite of their common origin from the Jungian typology, are not identical!

On MBTT -- yes, certainly. On the aspects of general typology that focus on the similarities and differences between different models, such as MBTT, Socionics, Keirsey, and others -- yes, that too.

Beyond arrogance. Foolish.

On what grounds. You haven't studied the subject, so you don't know what you are talking about. You are simply bluffing.

I don't bluff.

You should get spanked by SG for refusing to study the relevant written material, Ezra.

What does Ganin have to do with anything?

MBTT talks about all sorts of groups, including Keirsey's temperaments. They describe the typical differences between STs, SFs, NTs, and NFs, for example in relation to how different type groups prefer information to be presented to them. They also talk about the differences between NPs and NJs, etc. You can group the 16 types in many different ways depending on what aspects of the types you are focusing on.

Give me the relevant sites, book references. I have to read this immediately.

[quote]Is an IEI closer to an ILI or to an SEI? Is the base function more relevant to compare than the creative function?[quote]

I think so, yes.

We can choose which perspective to view the types from. In some respects the IEI is closer to the ILI, in some other respects the IEI is closer to the SEI, and in some other respects the IEI is closer to his NF cousins the Idealists/Humanitarians.

True.

Fine, but what seems to be happening is that some people assume that some views in socionics are just "my" views - presumably taken out of nowhere - and that those who (more or less) share those views are just blindly following me, presumably.

Maybe it's because they're jealous of the attention you receive.

[Phaedrus]

Well, obviously not, because he states that they're different!

In part 3 of his introduction, just before the big chart we have been discussing, Dmitri Lytov says the following about the correlations between the introverted sensory types in MBTT and Socionics, and he has stated the same thing in one of his posts on this forum, but I haven't found it yet, and if it isn't there it must have been destroyed in the Big Deletion about a year ago:

Dmitri Lytov: "But when we start comparing descriptions of the socionic types with the corresponding American descriptions, then we will find that ISFP (socionic) = ISFP (MBTT) and not ISFJ (MBTT), and the same rule is valid for the rest of sensory introverted types."

[Ezra]

Yep, descriptions. We care about functions.

[Phaedrus]

Yep, descriptions. We care about functions.

No. We care about types. In case you haven't noticed, the ABCD=ABCd thesis is all about types and nothing about functions. And Lytov agrees that the types are the same, but the functions are of course different if you by "function" refer to the theoretical explanation. If you refer to the referents to the functions, then they are of course the same since we are talking about the same objective reality, and in that case an MBTT INTP has the functions order .

[Ezra]

No. We care about types. In case you haven't noticed, the ABCD=ABCd thesis is all about types and nothing about functions. And Lytov agrees that the types are the same, but the functions are of course different if you by "function" refer to the theoretical explanation. If you refer to the referents to the functions, then they are of course the same since we are talking about the same objective reality, and in that case an MBTT INTP has the functions order .

Types are functions, Phaedrus. Hence, socionists care about functions. What use is a description if it doesn't refer to anything?

[Luke]

No. We care about types. In case you haven't noticed, the ABCD=ABCd thesis is all about types and nothing about functions. And Lytov agrees that the types are the same, but the functions are of course different if you by "function" refer to the theoretical explanation. If you refer to the referents to the functions, then they are of course the same since we are talking about the same objective reality, and in that case an MBTT INTP has the functions order .

Lytov's study raises some red flags for me...
http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

* Keirsey profiles were used, not official MBTT sources.
* Socionists surveyed may not have had the same cultural background as Keirsey. They may have even had English as second language.
* Only S-ego introverts had the predicted correlation in a consistent fashion.
* INTJ matched SLE, astonishingly. More understandably it also matched ENTJ.
* INTP was matched by LII -- in accordance to the alternate hypothesis.
* INFX matched INFx in a 50-50 fashion. There was no statistically significant difference. While this is partly in support of the hypothesis, it supports the alternate to an equal degree.
* The INF ambiguity is most likely a result of ambiguous descriptions in both camps.
* Several extrovert profiles did not match up very well either.
* Stereotypes could easily relate more to how a given type is expressed in a given culture. E.g. perhaps ILI can express more Se and Te in American culture than Russian, hence the INTJ being taken for ENTJ and ESTP.

In short, I am aware of this study but I disagree with the conclusion. As Expat says, it's basically a Frankenstein's Monster. I'm not so sure MBTT is as messed up on this score as Keirsey profiles. But it can't be denied that as type descriptions they are all way too vague. This criticism applies to DarkAngelFireWolf69 types listed on SG's site as well, along with the ones on Lytov's site. Attempts to describe a type from the outside tend to fall short because a person can take on different attributes for different reasons. It's the underlying motive that indicates a type, not simply the behavior exhibited.

[Phaedrus]

Lytov's study raises some red flags for me...
http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

* Keirsey profiles were used, not official MBTT sources.

They are equivalent. But it makes the typing skills of those socionists look even worse, because there are no functions Keirsey's type descriptions.

* Only S-ego introverts had the predicted correlation in a consistent fashion.

They are the easiest to spot, as everyone can see if you compare them. Everyone (except niffweed and perhaps a few other blind persons) agree that the ABCD=ABCd thesis holds perfectly true for the introverted S-ego types.

* INTJ matched SLE, astonishingly. More understandably it also matched ENTJ.

It didn't, because it never has. But the socionists in the study thought they matched, which is just stupid. They don't match.

* INTP was matched by LII -- in accordance to the alternate hypothesis.

That is no surprise and is actually what we should expect, because in Keirsey's INTP profiles he attributes "strucural design" to INTPs, and the way he describes that part of their thinking makes it look like . But if we look closer at how he describes the thinking of the INTP, we can see that he describes a an observer and a critic with a clear IP temperament and an outlook that is creative in Socionics. There is no more there, except from that about building structures (literally and figuratively). Of course Keirsey says that the INTP has the greatest precision in thought and language of all the types, that they are logicians etc, which is true of ILIs too. There is no better logician than an ILI. They are superior to LIIs in that respect, but not as good as the LII at structuring models.

* INFX matched INFx in a 50-50 fashion. There was no statistically significant difference. While this is partly in support of the hypothesis, it supports the alternate to an equal degree.

In one of my posts on this forum I have explained the details in Keirsey's INFP description and why it is a description of an IEI. My arguments for that claim are in fact clearly superior than for example's Expat's counter arguments in the same thread (it might have in a thread about Danielle's type).

* Several extrovert profiles did not match up very well either.

Sheer incompetence from the socionist's part. They match up well enough.

* Stereotypes could easily relate more to how a given type is expressed in a given culture. E.g. perhaps ILI can express more Se and Te in American culture than Russian, hence the INTJ being taken for ENTJ and ESTP.

Lazy and uncritical reading from the socionists again. Dmitri Lytov has even suggested that David Keirsey is an SLE, which is totally ridiculous and obviously absurd. Keirsey is a clear example of an ILI.

I'm not so sure MBTT is as messed up on this score as Keirsey profiles.

Keirsey's profiles are no more messed up than the MBTT profiles. The only ones that are messed up here are the socionists that participated in that study.

But it can't be denied that as type descriptions they are all way too vague.

They are not too vague, but they can certainly be improved here and there. The Socionis type descriptions can also be improved.

It's the underlying motive that indicates a type, not simply the behavior exhibited.

Wrong. It is the behavior exhibited that indicates the underlying motives and the type. Everyting in Socionics is based on observations of behaviour ultimately. As it should be.

[Luke]

They are the easiest to spot, as everyone can see if you compare them. Everyone (except niffweed and perhaps a few other blind persons) agree that the ABCD=ABCd thesis holds perfectly true for the introverted S-ego types.

I'm not sure about this one. On this forum it seems to be the case, but that could be due to mistypings. Perhaps the ISTJ is really SLI (i.e. Si-accepting) but regards themelf as LSI due to faulty type descriptions on the popular Socionics sites.

That is no surprise and is actually what we should expect, because in Keirsey's INTP profiles he attributes "strucural design" to INTPs, and the way he describes that part of their thinking makes it look like . But if we look closer at how he describes the thinking of the INTP, we can see that he describes a an observer and a critic with a clear IP temperament and an outlook that is creative in Socionics. There is no more there, except from that about building structures (literally and figuratively). Of course Keirsey says that the INTP has the greatest precision in thought and language of all the types, that they are logicians etc, which is true of ILIs too. There is no better logician than an ILI. They are superior to LIIs in that respect, but not as good as the LII at structuring models.

Plenty of MBTT literature can be found saying that the IP temperament is more indicative of introverted judgment. How do you disprove this? How do you know what "creative Te" looks like when that only occurs in bona-fide IP types, whose type in turn remains to be proven?

Wrong. It is the behavior exhibited that indicates the underlying motives and the type. Everyting in Socionics is based on observations of behaviour ultimately. As it should be.

You have to have a theory and that theory must be both internally consistent and experimentally proven. If experiments disprove a theory it's discredited. But it it wasn't internally consistent it wasn't a theory (or even a hypothesis) to start with. You can't just go on observations.

[Phaedrus]

I'm not sure about this one. On this forum it seems to be the case, but that could be due to mistypings. Perhaps the ISTJ is really SLI (i.e. Si-accepting) but regards themelf as LSI due to faulty type descriptions on the popular Socionics sites.

Why don't you check for yourself? Why don't you compare your hypotheses with reality? Read and compare a bunch of MBTT, Keirsey, and Socionic type descriptions. After such are reading you should never ever again be in any doubt about the truth of the ABCD=ABCd thesis in relation to the introverted sensing types. The correlation is so extremely clear that it is incredible that people can't see it. But of course you must ignore every reference to functions when you read them.

Plenty of MBTT literature can be found saying that the IP temperament is more indicative of introverted judgment. How do you disprove this?

Where? Show me exactly where right away. (I assume that you are not referring to the fact that according to MBTT IP types are supposed to have a leading introverted judging function, because the functions are irrelevant here.)

How do you know what "creative Te" looks like when that only occurs in bona-fide IP types, whose type in turn remains to be proven?

The types don't need to be proven. You only have to compare type descriptions. I have explained in some detail in at least one post in the past why Keirsey's INTP profile describes creative behaviour and attitudes. Every main ILI theme is to be found in INTP type descriptions -- both Keirsey's and MBTT's.

You have to have a theory and that theory must be both internally consistent and experimentally proven. If experiments disprove a theory it's discredited. But it it wasn't internally consistent it wasn't a theory (or even a hypothesis) to start with. You can't just go on observations.

You don't seem to get the point(s). All three theories -- Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey -- agree on what they can observe. But they explain it differently.

[Gilly]

Think about this: could the fact that there are obvious elements of both Ti in the ego AND IP temperament with Te in Keirsey/MBTT INTP descriptions suggest that they are incompatible with Socionics? Maybe? What if you had a brain? Would that help?


You guys are wasting your time.

[Phaedrus]

Think about this: could the fact that there are obvious elements of both Ti in the ego AND IP temperament with Te suggest that the theories are incompatible? Maybe?

If it were true, yes. But it is not true. "Ti" in MBTT INTP type descriptions is not ; it is more like a combination of and creative with some elements of in it.

[Luke]

Think about this: could the fact that there are obvious elements of both Ti in the ego AND IP temperament with Te in Keirsey/MBTT INTP descriptions suggest that they are incompatible with Socionics? Maybe? What if you had a brain? Would that help?


You guys are wasting your time.

1. Knock it off with the cheap insults. Seriously. I cannot have a respectful dialogue with someone who uses insults, and I will not participate in a disrespectful one.

2. If you are correct in your statement that "there are obvious elements of both Ti in the ego AND IP temperament with Te in Keirsey/MBTT INTP descriptions" it has very definite implications.

As applies to INTP/INTJ:

a. Socionics (as defined) is not consistent with reality.

b. Keirsey/MBTT (as defined) are not consistent with reality.

c. Neither (as defined) is completely consistent with reality.

Which of these are you putting forward, and why is it better than the alternatives in your opinion?

[Gilly]

1. Knock it off with the cheap insults. Seriously. I cannot have a respectful dialogue with someone who uses insults, and I will not participate in a disrespectful one.

2. If you are correct in your statement that "there are obvious elements of both Ti in the ego AND IP temperament with Te in Keirsey/MBTT INTP descriptions" it has very definite implications.

As applies to INTP/INTJ:

a. Socionics (as defined) is not consistent with reality.

b. Keirsey/MBTT (as defined) are not consistent with reality.

c. Neither (as defined) is completely consistent with reality.

Which of these are you putting forward, and why is it better than the alternatives in your opinion?

1. Knock it off with the cheap pedantry. I wasn't talking to you, and given the impression I have of you thus far, I have no desire to. My personal definition of respect has fuck-all to do with almost any use, or abuse, of language, so if that makes you not want to talk to me, goodbye.

2. I'm saying that MBTT and Socionics are inconsistent with one another in that they aren't necessarily talking about the same things. Nothing else. They are both consistent with reality in their own way; they're just observations and categorizations.

[Luke]

Something I should probably make clear is that my mind is not completely made up on this issue. I have firm opinions regarding taking certain possibilities into account. But prematurely making up one's mind regarding something is definitely not my style.

An INTP arguing a point may very well be trying to convince himself as much as his opposition. In this way INTPs are markedly different from INTJs, who are much more confident in their competence and willing to act on their convictions.

Nonetheless I often will tend to present the idea as certainly as possible, in order that it may be more fully examined.

Why don't you check for yourself? Why don't you compare your hypotheses with reality? Read and compare a bunch of MBTT, Keirsey, and Socionic type descriptions. After such are reading you should never ever again be in any doubt about the truth of the ABCD=ABCd thesis in relation to the introverted sensing types. The correlation is so extremely clear that it is incredible that people can't see it. But of course you must ignore every reference to functions when you read them.

Let us suppose you are correct; ABCD=ABCd, ignoring the functions. But once we quit ignoring the functions we have to say that MBTT functions are skewed in definition relative to socionics functions. For example, Fi1+Se2 is now Fe2+Si1. Terms like "accepting/producing" and "dominant/auxiliary" must be substituted for "introverted/extroverted" as defined differently in the different systems.

Even if this is the case, intuitive types may be typed differently. I tend to think there's a somewhat homogenous group of INTX typed as both INTP and INTJ, as initially LII is more flexible, but grows less so as more of a load is put upon him and the foundational trait is called upon more. The opposite is true for ILI, which is immediately assertive of and confident in their opinion yet can adapt to the call of rapidly changing circumstances.

Where? Show me exactly where right away. (I assume that you are not referring to the fact that according to MBTT IP types are supposed to have a leading introverted judging function, because the functions are irrelevant here.)

It's often described in very general terms. But of course it's theory. And functions are part of the theory.

The Yin Yang of J and P
In general people with a Perceiving Outer World Orientation (last letter P) have a go-with-the-flow orientation, taking things as they come, keeping their options open, and adapting to whatever comes up. Their opposite, those with a Judging Outer World Orientation, like to plan their work and work their plan. They order and anticipate what is going on in the outside world. Think about people you know; I suspect you can readily find several who fit the mold of J or P types. This characteristic is one of the four primary ways people differentiate from one another.

Now understand that everybody is both a J and a P. If they are J on the outside, they are a P on the inside. If they are P on the outside, they are J on the inside. Because they tend to hide their dominant function, Introverted Types best illustrate the befuddlement that can occur due to this Yin Yang duality: what you see is not necessarily what you get. But even extraverts can cross you up on occasion. ESTP types are among the most adaptable, go-with-the-flow, in the moment types. Yet in some situations they can be inflexible, closed minded, and set in their ways when their inner Thinking Judgment has taken over.

The types don't need to be proven. You only have to compare type descriptions. I have explained in some detail in at least one post in the past why Keirsey's INTP profile describes creative behaviour and attitudes. Every main ILI theme is to be found in INTP type descriptions -- both Keirsey's and MBTT's.

I find aspects of both J and P in my own type, as well as my father's. I don't think we're both the same type, nor are we "INTX". But that I would be taken for a P regarding a relatively unformed opinion and a J once I've more or less made up my mind is likely. As an adult, I probably have more well-formed opinions than I did as a child, so it may seem like I'm turning into a J. But give me a new and interesting source of data to evaluate and it's likely I will appear P-like.

You don't seem to get the point(s). All three theories -- Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey -- agree on what they can observe. But they explain it differently.

They all agree that Jung was right and you can measure (a certain major aspect of) personality via introversion/extroversion, sensing/intuition, and thinking/feeling, and that there's a judging/perceiving component there. They don't agree on how to best determine what individuals match what pattern. Socionics uses intertype relationships, MBTI is a questionnaire, and Keirsey uses stereotypes based on the four humors.

[Luke]

1. Knock it off with the cheap pedantry. I wasn't talking to you, and given the impression I have of you thus far, I have no desire to. My personal definition of respect has fuck-all to do with almost any use, or abuse, of language, so if that makes you not want to talk to me, goodbye.

I apologize for mistaking your intent, and for unnecessarily emphasizing negative aspects of your post. Maybe we're conflicting types . Still, I hate to be an antagonist whatever the case.

But I do think accusing someone of having no brain is just mean. And I think Phaedrus deserves an apology just as much as I would have liked one myself in a similar situation. Not that there's a rule that says you have to care or anything. I'm sure Phaedrus is tough and used to insults.

2. I'm saying that MBTT and Socionics are inconsistent with one another in that they aren't necessarily talking about the same things. Nothing else. They are both consistent with reality in their own way; they're just observations and categorizations.

Observations and categorizations of different phenomena, maybe?

If we want to take that to an extreme, there could be 8 dimensions to personality rather than 4. So maybe IINSTTJP could be my type, i.e. ISTP in one and INTJ in the other. This could be a completely static and lifelong, correct type.

Another (perhaps more likely) thought would be if one set of dimensions was the dynamic component of type, i.e. how you act at a given time in your life, whereas the other is static (unchanging) like Carl Jung posited. Of course both typologies claim theirs is restricted to the latter (unchanging) kind of trait -- because they both claim to be descended from Carl Jung's.

On the other hand, perhaps there's 8 dimensions but both typologies are incorrect in their stereotypes because both are taking dynamic traits and mixing them with their view of the static ones because they are oversimplifying.

There could also be less than 8 but more than 4 dimensions to take into account. E.g. the Big 5. Or there could be a 9th, hence the enneagram. Or something nobody's actually thought of yet.

I don't mean to diss your theory. I guess my main problem with your idea is it permits so many possibilities. If you could narrow down the field on what you think is and is not a likely possibility within the scope of your opinion, that would give some arguing space.

[Gilly]

I apologize for mistaking your intent, and for unnecessarily emphasizing negative aspects of your post. Maybe we're conflicting types . Still, I hate to be an antagonist whatever the case.

But I do think accusing someone of having no brain is just mean. And I think Phaedrus deserves an apology just as much as I would have liked one myself in a similar situation. Not that there's a rule that says you have to care or anything. I'm sure Phaedrus is tough and used to insults.

I have no intention of apologizing to Phaedrus. I doubt he cares what I say, and I've expressed much worse in the way of contempt for him in the past, so I hardly think that any further interaction between the two of us will be in any way fruitful.

Observations and categorizations of different phenomena, maybe?

Similar, and with some overlap, but not the same.

If we want to take that to an extreme, there could be 8 dimensions to personality rather than 4. So maybe IINSTTJP could be my type, i.e. ISTP in one and INTJ in the other. This could be a completely static and lifelong, correct type.

Another (perhaps more likely) thought would be if one set of dimensions was the dynamic component of type, i.e. how you act at a given time in your life, whereas the other is static (unchanging) like Carl Jung posited. Of course both typologies claim theirs is restricted to the latter (unchanging) kind of trait -- because they both claim to be descended from Carl Jung's.

On the other hand, perhaps there's 8 dimensions but both typologies are incorrect in their stereotypes because both are taking dynamic traits and mixing them with their view of the static ones because they are oversimplifying.

There could also be less than 8 but more than 4 dimensions to take into account. E.g. the Big 5. Or there could be a 9th, hence the enneagram. Or something nobody's actually thought of yet.

I don't mean to diss your theory. I guess my main problem with your idea is it permits so many possibilities. If you could narrow down the field on what you think is and is not a likely possibility within the scope of your opinion, that would give some arguing space.

The fact of the matter is, there will never be a perfect typology system, at least not until we are able to fully comprehend the inner workings of the human brain and how these manifest in people's true motivations and thought processes. Narrowing people down to ever-more specific types by observing external phenomena is pretty pointless, because in the end it boils down to people being distinct individuals; typology is just trying to find a mid-ground between our unique personalities and our common trait of homo sapiens sapiens. For the time being, these systems observe and categorize the behaviors that are easiest and most practical for us to observe and categorize, and that's about the best we can do. I think making wiggle room in the theory to allow for more specificness or certainty about people's types is really just nitpicking. Of course there's always room for new theories, even if they contradict old ones, because nothing is proven yet, but so far this one, Socionics, seems to be the best anyone has come up with, at least IMO.

[Phaedrus]

Let us suppose you are correct; ABCD=ABCd, ignoring the functions. But once we quit ignoring the functions we have to say that MBTT functions are skewed in definition relative to socionics functions. For example, Fi1+Se2 is now Fe2+Si1.

No. It is even more complicated than that.

Terms like "accepting/producing" and "dominant/auxiliary" must be substituted for "introverted/extroverted" as defined differently in the different systems.

I'm not sure that I get your point. There is no simple correlation between the functions in the two models. It is a complete mess.

It's often described in very general terms. But of course it's theory. And functions are part of the theory.

And therefore you are completely wrong about this. Forget all you think you know about it and start from scratch again.

I find aspects of both J and P in my own type, as well as my father's. I don't think we're both the same type, nor are we "INTX". But that I would be taken for a P regarding a relatively unformed opinion and a J once I've more or less made up my mind is likely. As an adult, I probably have more well-formed opinions than I did as a child, so it may seem like I'm turning into a J. But give me a new and interesting source of data to evaluate and it's likely I will appear P-like.

It seems as though you don't really understand the differences between J and P types. Nothing in what you describe here suggests that you are a rational type. All of it clearly suggests that you are an irrational P type -- in both MBTT and Socionics.

[Phaedrus]

I have no intention of apologizing to Phaedrus. I doubt he cares what I say, and I've expressed much worse in the way of contempt for him in the past, so I hardly think that any further interaction between the two of us will be in any way fruitful.

A pretty much correct summary of the situation. I am a retard, and Gilly is an idiot. No brain, no pain.

[Gilly]

A pretty much correct summary of the situation. I am a retard, and Gilly is an idiot. No brain, no pain.

Capiche.

[Luke]

No. It is even more complicated than that.


I'm not sure that I get your point. There is no simple correlation between the functions in the two models. It is a complete mess.


And therefore you are completely wrong about this. Forget all you think you know about it and start from scratch again.


It seems as though you don't really understand the differences between J and P types. Nothing in what you describe here suggests that you are a rational type. All of it clearly suggests that you are an irrational P type -- in both MBTT and Socionics.

Lemme see. Cutting out functions and all that:

1. Types

a) "Temperaments" - IP EP IJ EJ
b) "Clubs" - NT NF ST SF

2. Intertype relations predictions

a) RRRS = duality (Socionics)
b) RRRR = inverse/complement (MBTT)
c) RRRR = conflicting (Socionics)

d) RSSS = contrary (Socionics)
e) RSSR = opposite (MBTT)
f) RSSS = mirror (Socionics)

g) SRRR = super-ego (Socionics)
h) SRRR = dynamic opposite (MBTT)
i) SRRS = activity (Socionics)

It's the intertype relations predictions that are the main issue here. Beebe makes opposite intertype relations predictions between introverts and extroverts.

Either Beebe is inconsistent with the rest of MBTI experts, or he basically has a form of classical Socionics where the IJ and IP are transposed.

[Phaedrus]

It's the intertype relations predictions that are the main issue here. Beebe makes opposite intertype relations predictions between introverts and extroverts.

Either Beebe is inconsistent with the rest of MBTI experts, or he basically has a form of classical Socionics where the IJ and IP are transposed.

Forget about Beebe and everything said in MBTT about intertype relations too. They don't know what they are talking about. They are only speculating based on erroneous assumptions (since they have messed up the functions). The result of their speculations can only be a disaster.

1. The temperaments EJ, IJ, EP, and IP are the same in both models.

2. The clubs NT, NF, ST, and SF are the same in both models.

3. The four dichotomies E/I, S/N, T/F, and J/P are the same in both models.

4. Every Sj type in Socionics is a Guardian in Keirsey and MBTT (since they have integrated Keirsey's temperaments in their understanding of the types), every Sp in Socionics is an Artisan in Keirsey, every NT type in Socionics is a Rational, and every NF type in Socionics is an Idealist.

In their type descriptions Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey all agree on 1, 2, 3, and 4.

[Luke]

Forget about Beebe and everything said in MBTT about intertype relations too. They don't know what they are talking about. They are only speculating based on erroneous assumptions (since they have messed up the functions). The result of their speculations can only be a disaster.

1. The temperaments EJ, IJ, EP, and IP are the same in both models.

2. The clubs NT, NF, ST, and SF are the same in both models.

3. The four dichotomies E/I, S/N, T/F, and J/P are the same in both models.

4. Every Sj type in Socionics is a Guardian in Keirsey and MBTT (since they have integrated Keirsey's temperaments in their understanding of the types), every Sp in Socionics is an Artisan in Keirsey, every NT type in Socionics is a Rational, and every NF type in Socionics is an Idealist.

In their type descriptions Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey all agree on 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Ok, suppose that's all true, 100% across the board. This means every time you see a Myersan "introverted" trait it's "producing" and every "auxiliary" trait is "introverted". "Ti" in myersan terms is producing logic in socionics terms. Fe in Myersan terms is accepting ethics.

I'm not saying this as an argument against (or for) what you're saying. It's just a logical consequence thereof -- what happens to the functions, and how they must have mutated for such a situation to occur. And it's not implausable. Words like "dominant" and "foundational" are different, and could easily connotate different things in the minds of experienced typists of their respective disciplines. Similarly, we know that Myersans tend to think of introversion and extroversion as how we relate to the inner and outer world, whereas Augustans will say it's how we relate to fields and bodies. These are definitely different concepts.


As to whether they agree like you say they do, it's clear that they appear to agree, at least for the introverted sensors. Whether they agree as far as real people being typed within the respective systems are concerned, is another question.

[Phaedrus]

Ok, suppose that's all true, 100% across the board. This means every time you see a Myersan "introverted" trait it's "producing" and every "auxiliary" trait is "introverted". "Ti" in myersan terms is producing logic in socionics terms. Fe in Myersan terms is accepting ethics.

How do you come to that conclusion? Are you not assuming things that are not necessarily true? A trait is not a function. Traits can be observed (because they can be described without a theory), functions can not be observed (because they depend on the theory). "Ti" is nothing but a theoretical construct that is designed to describe (explain) some observable behaviours found in the types. It corresponds to more than one function in Socionics, and the boundaries are not clear.