PM, IM, .... let's get to the point: are you a lesbian?
I think maybe what one or two people have looked to identify here is that Java has said that he knows MBTT well but is new to socionics, so looking to make sure there is no confusion of what we mean by the functions names and definitions being the same as what others are referring to on socionics, and what Java is referring to.
And that would both explain why you identify with Paul James's INTP type profile to a significant extent (ENTps tend to identify with INTP type descriptions, especially that one). At the same time it would prove that it does not describe a LII.
I am giving you some rope here, Elro, showing you the direction in which to look for the truth. I hope you realize that. So, don't fall for the temptation, please ... with the rope I mean.
If you take a test after six years, the second time you take it, it is basically a new test because you won't be able to remember how you answered the questions.
If you take two seperate tests which are testing the same thing on the same day, and there is a lower correlation between the scores then between the two test results taken six years apart, then clearly there is something wrong. Tests are calibrated to give the most reliable questions for the dichotomy you are trying to measure. If MBTI and the Big Five both use Jungian definitions for extroversion\introversion, you'd expect a higher degree of correlation than 74%. 74% might be fairly high, but it isn't as high as the 77%.
Lord Java the 3rd: IEI (ILE would be an unlikely second choice)
phaedrus: LSI
crazedrat: clearly EIE
I invite you to agree with, disagree with, and/or criticize me to your heart's content. This topic is going nowhere, so chances are good I won't be back.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Joy = clearly fucking retarded
Was it niffweed or you who thought that Jarno may be an LII? I cannot honestly remember. But I must say that Gamma quadra has my sympathies for the "Nouveau Gamma" influx.
@crazedat: While I agree that sometimes Joy has a habit of sidestepping the issues that you present that seem out of context and non-issues by turning it into a "proof" regarding your type, I would hardly say that Joy is "clearly fucking retarded." She can be frustrating, as I am many times as well, but not clearly fucking retarded.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Do you mean new gamma members, or people who incorrectly think they are gamma? If you're referring to me, I'm going to note that in a negative light. I'm not happy. Btw, I can totally tell that you're EIE, what now?! Oh noes, your world is corrupting because other peoples minds control your type. Defend it? Nah, you have enough status in this forum to lean on.
Pick on someone else with your title. If anything, Gamma needs some more threads to keep them from dying. Sympathy. Really.
Why don't you do something 'constructive'.
Concepts, Fantasy, Strategy, and Power.
INTp
hmm since my statement about how an IEI might react was rubbish,
I guess I can't be an IEI myself afterall...
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
There isn't actually any difference between a 'correlation score' and a percentage correlation. A correlation of 74% is the same as a correlarion of 0.74 on a scale of -1 to 1.
Not only is it a three point difference, it is a gap of six years.
And you're the one who assumes that Socionics and MBTI must be the same because they must be the same...
a percentage score is not exponential... a correlation score is exponential. Meaning the upper limits of the score are more variant then a linear interpretation of the scores scale would lead one to believe... it is this linear interpretation (and of only a 3 point difference) which you are basing your entire argument on.
k, next.
I um.. am the one who assumes socionics and MBTI are the same because......... they must be the same?
What?
.
No, I think their functions are the same, in that they have a common phenomenon they are attempting to describe. We have said nothing about the functions themselves in this exchange... if you would like to discuss them, and give me your ideas (you know, get to the heart of the matter) i promise to seem interested.
Now for the part where I reword and repeat myself:
in one instance we have socionic test A being taken 7 years apart, so as to treat them as "seperate tests" (and although this assumption is somewhat flawed, a discussion on this is beyond the scope of what we are doing now)... with a .77 correlation.
In another instance we have socionic test A and socionic test B being taken simultaneously with .X correlation
In another instance we have socionic test A and MBTI test A being taken simultaneously with a .74 correlation.
You have not specified X.
It is necessary to specify X, in order to establish differences in scoring related to testing, but unrelated to theory.
Furthermore, if you were to specify X, and it turned out X was a certain number of points or more higher then .74 (this will be dependent on whatever the standard error is for this, which you haven't said anything about yet) all you would prove is there is a difference in the testing methods of MBTI and socionics. You would prove nothing about the theories themselves.
k?
Last edited by crazedrat; 05-07-2008 at 03:51 AM.