Phaedrus' Ideas and More Improvements in Socionics

[jason_m]

A lot of people around here don't like Phaedrus' ideas. I would suppose that this has more to do with the way he promotes his ideas than the ideas themselves. I haven't been able to find a thread that gets to the core of the issue, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that he promotes the notion that MBTI = socionics = Keirsey typing. I'm not going to say that it's true, but I can see how someone could come up with this idea. Socionics is not rigorously defined. The interpretation of how socionics should be tested at www.socionics.com (which is basically testing the four main dichotomies) is remarkably similar to the MBTI and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Therefore, if you buy into socionics.com's conception or the idea that the four dichotomies are the main determinant of type, then they all could be viewed as the same.

As I said, socionics is not rigorously defined. Someone has to come up with a standard method of typing people. This is an advantage that the MBTI has over socionics. If you have no emphasis on what parts of the theory are essential and you have no method of typing people, then everyone has a different conception of what comprises socionics, and everyone will be typing people differently. The theory is complex enough that few could fit every aspect of it. Therefore, if someone were to come up with some standards, there would be less confusion, and it would be much easier to type people. Ideally, the best way to type people would be to figure out what the essential aspects of typing someone are, while remaining true to the theory, and then coming up with a test that gives fairly reliable results. It might seem like a daunting task, but what about a test that measures each informational element and types people based on their two most used and compatible functions? Sure, there's a lot more to being an INTp than simply having , but for testing purposes, is it really necessary to get much more complicated than that? The only serious drawback that I could see would be the wording of the questions. There are so many subtypes of people who have, for example, dominant , that it can be difficult to generate questions that will correctly determine most dominant types. However, this doesn't mean that it could never be done.

As for Phaedrus' ideas, if a test similar to my conception were to turn out to be a valid measure, then Phaedrus' notion would seem less credible. But who knows, perhaps we could never be able to come up with an accurate test, and if that's the case, we could never say for certain whether Phaedrus is truly right or wrong. (It seems wrong to me, but without aspects of the theory that we consider to be critical, we could never know. And if you do believe there to be central parts to the theory, then how could, for example, Wikisocion and socionics.com vary so much?)

Tell me what you think.

Jason

[tcaudilllg]

His main argument is that they SHOULD match. He gets confused into thinking that they do match as the creators of either theory have defined them...

[Phaedrus]

Socionists in general indirectly agree that the types are the same in all three models according to the four dichotomies. Filatova surely assumes that they are the same in her book on Socionics, Lytov does not deny it, Ganin does not deny it either, and there is no strong reason whatsoever presented anywhere at any time by anyone to assume that the types are not the same according to the ABCD=ABCd thesis.

According to how the types are defined in Socionics (and in MBTT and Keirsey) the types are also necessarily the same, regardless of how many socionists realize that fact or not. And besides the fact that the types must be the same, the types are also described as very similar in behaviours and attitudes when we compare type descriptions. In addition to that, most people test and identify as the same type in Socionics and MBTT. And if we look at real life examples of each type, the types fit the ABCD=ABCd thesis perfectly according to V.I.

How much more evidence to you people really need in order to be convinced?

[Gilly]

There actually ARE strict definitions for the core terms used in Socionics, and they do not always coincide ( indeed, they are are sometimes completely at odds) with the vagueries provided by MBTI and Keirsey. For example MBTI says that ISFJ and ISTJ are dominant in Introverted Sensing, which is quite clearly not the case in Socionics. True, this is merely a terminological difference, and may not be indicative of the underlying truth of what those types represent, but if one were to examine, say, the typical MBTT INTJ portrait, it becomes quite apparent that the type being discussed most likely does not have Extroverted Sensing, as defined by Socionics, in the weakest place.

"Indirectly agree," lmfao.

[Enters Laughing]

There was a study where the 16 Keirsey type descriptions were sent to 108 Socionists, who then read them all and then identified which Socionics type best matched each description.

The results are on this page, about half down and under the heading 'Method 3'.

[Phaedrus]

There actually ARE strict definitions for the core terms used in Socionics, and they do not always coincide ( indeed, they are are sometimes completely at odds) with the vagueries provided by MBTI and Keirsey.

That is an irrelevant comment, because the types can be the same (and they are) despite the terms used to talk about the types are different in the three models. That the terms are different is exactly what we should expect (and no one has disputed it) since their theoretical explanations of the types are different.

For example MBTI says that ISFJ and ISTJ are dominant in Introverted Sensing, which is quite clearly not the case in Socionics.

Introverted Sensing (Si) is a completely different function from in Socionics. They have almost nothing at all to do with each other.

True, this is merely a terminological difference, and may not be indicative of the underlying truth of what those types represent, but if one were to examine, say, the typical MBTT INTJ portrait, it becomes quite apparent that the type being discussed most likely does not have Extroverted Sensing, as defined by Socionics, in the weakest place.

That is also an irrelevant comment, because everybody knows that the ordering of the functions (which in themselvers are also different) is different in the theoretical explanations of the types. And the theoretical explanations of the types are totally irrelevant for the truth ABCD=ABCd thesis.

[Gilly]

lol

I'm outa here. This is already going nowhere.

[jason_m]

According to how the types are defined in Socionics (and in MBTT and Keirsey) the types are also necessarily the same, regardless of how many socionists realize that fact or not.

Why is it that the types "must" be the same?

And besides the fact that the types must be the same, the types are also described as very similar in behaviours and attitudes when we compare type descriptions.

But not all of them are. I agree that most of the introverted types with sensing sound the same, but the INTj descriptions don't sound much like the MBTI INTJ descriptions. For example, socionics.com says that INTjs lack self-confidence. This is exactly opposite of what typelogic.com says about INTJs. In other words, I relate to most INTj descriptions but not most INTJ descriptions.

In addition to that, most people test and identify as the same type in Socionics and MBTT.

But only on tests similar to the one on socionics.com. I've read somewhere that there is only a 30% correlation between the typings of the two systems.

And if we look at real life examples of each type, the types fit the ABCD=ABCd thesis perfectly according to V.I.

I haven't seen any information about the visual identification of MBTI types. What evidence do you have that they are the same?

Honestly though, I can see how someone could say that some MBTI interpretation = some Keirsey interpretation = some socionics interpretation. I can't see how that equation works if we say replace the word "some" with the words "most every." In other words, they are all similar, but in order to say that they are all exactly the same, we would have to redefine a lot of the ideas in each system. That's fine if that's your interpretation of it. But if you're saying that they are exactly the same without any restructuring, then it's a lot harder to see how.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

Why is it that the types "must" be the same?

How can you not understand this? The types are defined by the four dichotomies, and the four dichotomies are the same in all three models. The functions are not the same, so they are irrelevant.

But not all of them are.

Wrong. All of the types are described as very similar.

I agree that most of the introverted types with sensing sound the same, but the INTj descriptions don't sound much like the MBTI INTJ descriptions. For example, socionics.com says that INTjs lack self-confidence. This is exactly opposite of what typelogic.com says about INTJs.

You are right about that detail in the type descriptions, but it is only a minor detail after all, and you have to look at the overall picture that emerges when you have read tons of type descriptions from Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey. There is no other type than the INTj that is closer to how INTJs are described in MBTT and Keirsey.

In other words, I relate to most INTj descriptions but not most INTJ descriptions.

Is there any other type(s) in MBTT (and/or Keirsey) that fit you clearly better than INTJ?

But only on tests similar to the one on socionics.com. I've read somewhere that there is only a 30% correlation between the typings of the two systems.

Yes, and that's pure bullshit. Don't pay any attention to it, because it is irrelevant. They are not talking about the real types.

I haven't seen any information about the visual identification of MBTI types. What evidence do you have that they are the same?

My own observations of real life people. Everything fits perfectly.

[jason_m]

How can you not understand this?

How could you think that this is easy to see when most people do not agree with you?

The types are defined by the four dichotomies, and the four dichotomies are the same in all three models. The functions are not the same, so they are irrelevant.

But not all types are defined by the four dicotomies. I will agree that this is so in with the MBTI and Keirsey, but socionics has no one way of defining the types. You could define them by the dichotomies, by the functions, by visual identification, by their relationships with others, etc. None of these features have officially been given precedence over the other, and no standard method of typing has been given. Hence, the confusion I stated in the original post.

Wrong. All of the types are described as very similar.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

You are right about that detail in the type descriptions, but it is only a minor detail after all, and you have to look at the overall picture that emerges when you have read tons of type descriptions from Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey. There is no other type than the INTj that is closer to how INTJs are described in MBTT and Keirsey.

I don't know about this. Keirsey's descriptions are kind of vague, but I think that the INTP description in the MBTI sounds closer.

Is there any other type(s) in MBTT (and/or Keirsey) that fit you clearly better than INTJ?

In the MBTI, I identify with most INTP descriptions, some INFJ descriptions, and some INFP descriptions. However, I don't identify with the socionics INTp descriptions.

Yes, and that's pure bullshit. Don't pay any attention to it, because it is irrelevant. They are not talking about the real types.

So you're saying that this is your own interpretation of socionics, not the general interpretation that most others use? If that's the case, I cannot argue with you, since, as I said, there is no official way of determining the types.

Jason

[Expat]

Someone has to come up with a standard method of typing people. This is an advantage that the MBTI has over socionics.

That depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your purpose is simply to find the person's type in a quick and simple manner, than MBTI is better. But the question is, what do you actually do with that information. Those who prefer socionics to MBTI (or Myers-Briggs typology generally) usually do so because they think that you can do a lot more with the accurate socionics type, however difficult it may be to find it.

If you have no emphasis on what parts of the theory are essential and you have no method of typing people, then everyone has a different conception of what comprises socionics, and everyone will be typing people differently.

That's one reason why people come to this forum, and why some of us try to meet personally. Not necessarily to reach agreement in everything, but to understand what each other is talking about, so hopefully we won't have extreme differences when typing people. But, in the end, each person must decide whether an individual typing makes sense or not.

Therefore, if someone were to come up with some standards, there would be less confusion, and it would be much easier to type people.

There is no "royal road to socionics", I'm afraid. If you make it easier, you risk making it less accurate. My view anyway.

Ideally, the best way to type people would be to figure out what the essential aspects of typing someone are, while remaining true to the theory, and then coming up with a test that gives fairly reliable results. It might seem like a daunting task, but what about a test that measures each informational element and types people based on their two most used and compatible functions? Sure, there's a lot more to being an INTp than simply having , but for testing purposes, is it really necessary to get much more complicated than that? The only serious drawback that I could see would be the wording of the questions. There are so many subtypes of people who have, for example, dominant , that it can be difficult to generate questions that will correctly determine most dominant types. However, this doesn't mean that it could never be done.

There have been many attempts. You feel like trying as well, go ahead.

And if you do believe there to be central parts to the theory, then how could, for example, Wikisocion and socionics.com vary so much?)

Well, where do they disagree in the "central" parts?

[JuJu]

That depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your purpose is simply to find the person's type in a quick and simple manner, than MBTI is better. But the question is, what do you actually do with that information. Those who prefer socionics to MBTI (or Myers-Briggs typology generally) usually do so because they think that you can do a lot more with the accurate socionics type, however difficult it may be to find it.
...
That's one reason why people come to this forum, and why some of us try to meet personally. Not necessarily to reach agreement in everything, but to understand what each other is talking about, so hopefully we won't have extreme differences when typing people. But, in the end, each person must decide whether an individual typing makes sense or not.
...
There is no "royal road to socionics", I'm afraid. If you make it easier, you risk making it less accurate. My view anyway.

This is very accurate, IMO... Personally, it's taken me several years to grasp to Socionics to the degree that I have--and I still have a ways to go... Several more years, I imagine. (Hell, it took me almost two years to narrow down my type to XNFp!)

Typing ppl with Myers-Briggs or Keirsey is very simplistic compared with Socionics' comparable process... Ultimately though, as Expat said well, one can know much more about oneself, others, one's relationships with others, etc. by knowing Socionics... Thus, I've found it a rewarding process to learn how to type using Socionics--more rewarding than MBTI and Keirsey, systems that seem superficial by comparison.

Here's an example where XXXX (other theories) does not equal XXXx (Socionics.) Several days ago, I was attempting to type Michael Jordan using Socionics. Keirsey and MBTI practitioners have typed Jordan ISTp... This would seem to make sense, right? After all, Jordan seems quiet, which is a good indicator or Introversion in the aforementioned systems... After watching numerous interviews with Jordan, however, it became clear to me that he does not possess 'Delta values.' Jordan projects Se more than anything else, and responds much more to Fe than Fi. (It's been noted that Jordan despised former #1 pick Kwame Brown's--who is certainly ISTp--for his perceived lack of passion and unresponsiveness to Fe motivation.) That's not to say that Keirsey's or MBTI's typing of Jordan were way off--clearly, Jordan is XSTx... He's just not a Delta XSTx. IMO, the evidence points to beta XSTx.

As to consensus typings in Socionics, I agree with you--I wish that there could be more of them here on this forum. To be honest though, since Socionics takes such a long time to learn, and is complicated, the lack of consensus here makes sense. After all, most ppl here are in the process of figuring out the system themselves... There are very few experts, although some ppl are well on their way...

Let's keep in mind that this theory is relatively new to English-speakers... I believe that there will be more consensus in the future, as ppl learn the ins-and-outs of the theory...

I believe that it could be of great help if those who were 100% confident of certain typings could assemble a benchmark list, so that newcomers to Socionics could associate the Socionics functions about which they'll read to visuals, and sounds, etc. (In other words, we could compile interviews/videos of ppl.)

I believe that typing ppl strictly by the Jungian foundation, or by societal role leads to many mis-typings in Socionics. Those sorts of typings are fine for the other theories, which describe superficial characteristics more than anything... But for Socionics, which describes ppl's inner-motivations and relationships, one must learn the functions... And that takes time, for better or worse.

[Expat]

I believe that it could be of great help if those who were 100% confident of certain typings could assemble a benchmark list, so that newcomers to Socionics could associate the Socionics functions about which they'll read to visuals, and sounds, etc. (In other words, we could compile interviews/videos of ppl.)

I am not 100% confident of any typing. But there is already something like that in Rick's sites and in the wiki's list of celebrities.

I believe that typing ppl strictly by the Jungian foundation, or by societal role leads to many mis-typings in Socionics. Those sorts of typings are fine for the other theories, which describe superficial characteristics more than anything... But for Socionics, which describes ppl's inner-motivations and relationships, one must learn the functions... And that takes time, for better or worse.

Yes, but some people aren't willing to accept that.

[JuJu]

I am not 100% confident of any typing. But there is already something like that in Rick's sites and in the wiki's list of celebrities.

Yup, that's true... Maybe I should concentrate on putting up some typings on wikisocion. (I need to learn how to do it now, haha)

Yes, but some people aren't willing to accept that.

It's true... I'm not sure exactly how you type ppl, but I've noticed that I often agree with your typings, and the reasoning behind them... When I first came to Socionics, I believe that I would've doubted many of your typings b/c they'd have seemed counter-intuitive to me.

For example, I remember a particular thread about American presidents and G.W. Bush. In it, some ppl were arguing that Bush was an extroverted type because he seemed gregarious, and a perceiving type b/c he seemed pretty easy-going--I remember thinking something along the lines of: "how can Bush be an introverted type? He's always talking with ppl and joking..."

If I was typing him using just Jungian foundation, I would type Bush as EXXx. However, after learning more about Socionics, I realized that extroversion (in the most frequently used sense) was not a fool-proof indicator of a Socionics extroverted leading function. So re: G.W. Bush: the functions that he manifests most (i.e. are most noticeable) are Fi and Se... His personal values--not the values of the American presidency, nor his administration's policies--but his personal values are Gamma values... In Socionics, I'm pretty sure that he's ISFj. (Aside: Bush Sr, who arguably seems more of an introverted person than his son, in Socionics, has an extroverted leading function.)

If I remember correctly, you were the voice in the wilderness arguing for Bush as ISFj--and at the time I thought, "no." lol

But yeah, essentially what I'm trying to say is that I agree with how you seem to go about typing ppl.

[Expat]

but his personal values are Gamma values... In Socionics, I'm pretty sure that he's ISFj. (Aside: Bush Sr, who arguably seems more of an introverted person than his son, in Socionics, has an extroverted leading function.)

If I remember correctly, you were the voice in the wilderness arguing for Bush as ISFj--and at the time I thought, "no." lol

I don't remember ever seriously suggesting that Bush was ISFj; if I did, I don't know what I was thinking.

My present view, also after reading The Bush Tragedy by Jacob Weisberg, is:

President George W. Bush - ENFj
former president Bush - ESTj
Dick Cheney - ENTj
Condolleezza Rice - ISFj

[Expat]

Here's an example where XXXX (other theories) does not equal XXXx (Socionics.) Several days ago, I was attempting to type Michael Jordan using Socionics. Keirsey and MBTI practitioners have typed Jordan ISTp... This would seem to make sense, right? After all, Jordan seems quiet, which is a good indicator or Introversion in the aforementioned systems... After watching numerous interviews with Jordan, however, it became clear to me that he does not possess 'Delta values.' Jordan projects Se more than anything else, and responds much more to Fe than Fi. (It's been noted that Jordan despised former #1 pick Kwame Brown's--who is certainly ISTp--for his perceived lack of passion and unresponsiveness to Fe motivation.) That's not to say that Keirsey's or MBTI's typing of Jordan were way off--clearly, Jordan is XSTx... He's just not a Delta XSTx. IMO, the evidence points to beta XSTx.

I know nothing about Jordan or Brown, but your reasoning seems spot on to me.

[jason_m]

That depends on what you're trying to achieve. If your purpose is simply to find the person's type in a quick and simple manner, than MBTI is better. But the question is, what do you actually do with that information. Those who prefer socionics to MBTI (or Myers-Briggs typology generally) usually do so because they think that you can do a lot more with the accurate socionics type, however difficult it may be to find it.

The problem isn't just that it's difficult to find, it's almost impossible to find. I've rarely seen any group of people come to a consensus about someone's type. The reason for this is because everyone is focusing on different aspects of the theory that they consider to be most important. If someone were to evaluate what aspects lead to the most accurate typings, then we would know where to look.

There is no "royal road to socionics", I'm afraid. If you make it easier, you risk making it less accurate. My view anyway.

I didn't say that it has to be easy. Don't you think that some methods of typing yield more accurate results than others? If we were to crystallize these accurate methods and come up with some objective way of doing it, then there would be less confusion.

There have been many attempts. You feel like trying as well, go ahead.

I never said that I felt like trying. I'm simply not creative enough to come up with good test questions. But I think that the approach that I've mentioned would be a good start for someone who does have the ability to come up with them.

EDIT: Another possible approach would be to come up with several descriptions of each type, each about two paragraphs long. The testee could then rate each description, based on how much it fits them. Also, if a person gives a description a perfect score, then that score should be given more weight, and the approximate best weighting would be determined by testing the instrument against those who have known types. The type with the highest score would be the result. I think this would be quite effective, but somewhat difficult to create.

Well, where do they disagree in the "central" parts?

I'm not going to bother searching to find out where exactly, but I know that a lot of people around here don't consider socionics.com to be a good source of information, while they do consider Wikisocion to be good. I don't see how this would be possible if they both agreed on most things.

Jason

[Expat]

The problem isn't just that it's difficult to find, it's almost impossible to find. I've rarely seen any group of people come to a consensus about someone's type. The reason for this is because everyone is focusing on different aspects of the theory that they consider to be most important. If someone were to evaluate what aspects lead to the most accurate typings, then we would know where to look.

Personally I don't think that reaching a consensus about anyone's type is that important; I think it's more important that we understand where everyone is coming from for their typings.

Also, we're talking about typing each other online, or typing celebrities. When people here actually meet, discussions on each other's types are much clearer.

EDIT: Another possible approach would be to come up with several descriptions of each type, each about two paragraphs long. The testee could then rate each description, based on how much it fits them. Also, if a person gives a description a perfect score, then that score should be given more weight, and the approximate best weighting would be determined by testing the instrument against those who have known types. The type with the highest score would be the result. I think this would be quite effective, but somewhat difficult to create.

Something like that has been tried, see for instance Hugo's test here:


http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...nic_type_tests

I'm not going to bother searching to find out where exactly, but I know that a lot of people around here don't consider socionics.com to be a good source of information, while they do consider Wikisocion to be good. I don't see how this would be possible if they both agreed on most things.

It depends on what you're talking about. I think that most people here would agree that socionics.com is useful as a first introduction to socionics, due to its type descriptions (I think that the +/- ones are particularly good), the descriptions of the relationships, and the general ideas. I don't think anyone would say that those bits are wrong.

[jason_m]

Personally I don't think that reaching a consensus about anyone's type is that important; I think it's more important that we understand where everyone is coming from for their typings.

But if we only understand where everyone is coming from, then there is no final say as to anyone's type. For example, if I only know that you're using a method different from me, but not whose is better, then what have we accomplished? All we have are different methods of typing people, but no say as to which one is correct.

Also, we're talking about typing each other online, or typing celebrities. When people here actually meet, discussions on each other's types are much clearer.

I can't comment on that. I've never discussed socionics with any knowledgeable person in real life. I'm also not very good at typing people I know; there are only a select few that I'm fairly certain about.

Something like that has been tried, see for instance Hugo's test here:


http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...nic_type_tests

That seems different from what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting several multiple paragraph descriptions of each type (e.g., five three paragraph descriptions per type), and have the testee rate each description. The reason for having descriptions would be because that is often the bottom line when determining someone's type. The reason for having multiple of them would be because one or two descriptions are not really enough to accurately say that the type is conclusive. I also suggested that if someone gives a perfect rating to a description (the scale should be fairly large), then that type gets extra points. This would be because a description that fits perfectly is much more likely to be one of the correct type, so this should be given extra credit. The real trick to designing such a test would be creating multiple accurate descriptions for each type. And, as far as I can see, this would be difficult.

Jason

[Expat]

But if we only understand where everyone is coming from, then there is no final say as to anyone's type. For example, if I only know that you're using a method different from me, but not whose is better, then what have we accomplished? All we have are different methods of typing people, but no say as to which one is correct.

Well yes, in the end, you have to decide for yourself whether the picture you have makes sense or not. In my experience, a time comes when all the pieces fit into place and then it all makes sense.

That seems different from what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting several multiple paragraph descriptions of each type (e.g., five three paragraph descriptions per type), and have the testee rate each description. The reason for having descriptions would be because that is often the bottom line when determining someone's type. The reason for having multiple of them would be because one or two descriptions are not really enough to accurately say that the type is conclusive. I also suggested that if someone gives a perfect rating to a description (the scale should be fairly large), then that type gets extra points. This would be because a description that fits perfectly is much more likely to be one of the correct type, so this should be given extra credit. The real trick to designing such a test would be creating multiple accurate descriptions for each type. And, as far as I can see, this would be difficult.

It's not so different. If you take that test, a point comes where you have options based on one-paragraph descriptions (based on subtypes, but anyway), following previous selections based on one-paragraph descriptions of functions. So the logic is similar.

The problem with the kind of test you're proposing, and it has been attempted here many times, is that many people seeem to have difficulty in deciding which bits in each description are more or less important.

[krieger]

According to Keirseys' "Please understand me" guide to typology, the two types that any type is supposed to be primarily attracted to are -- what under a perfect correlation with socionics would be -- the conflictor and the supervisor/supervisee that has sensing/intuiting in common with the type.

So there.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

According to Keirseys' "Please understand me" guide to typology, the two types that any type is supposed to be primarily attracted to are -- what under a perfect correlation with socionics would be -- the conflictor and the supervisor/supervisee that has sensing/intuiting in common with the type.

So there.

So there what?

The reality is these relations work well from a US Gamma productive viewpoint. From an outsider looking in, US marriages, although perhaps materialistically productive, they certainly seem to be unhappy unisons.

The only thing you are proving more or less is that socionics is superior for intertype relations, but you already agree with that so I take it you agree with Phaedrus then?

[jason_m]

According to Keirseys' "Please understand me" guide to typology, the two types that any type is supposed to be primarily attracted to are -- what under a perfect correlation with socionics would be -- the conflictor and the supervisor/supervisee that has sensing/intuiting in common with the type.

So there.

It's interesting. I'm more attracted to types that aren't my dual, but I find that I would probably get along best with my dual. I'm not sure what socionics is saying exactly. I don't know if you're supposed to be attracted to your dual, or that you would find them to be a sort of "soulmate."

Jason

[JuJu]

It's interesting. I'm more attracted to types that aren't my dual, but I find that I would probably get along best with my dual. I'm not sure what socionics is saying exactly. I don't know if you're supposed to be attracted to your dual, or that you would find them to be a sort of "soulmate."

Jason

Rick's got a good description of duality on his site, socionics.us. (Dunno if you've seen that.)

I agree that Socionics.com has some shaky parts, especially the celebrity typings and the VI thingy, (both often way off.) Some of the descriptions are pretty good, but yeah, I find Wikisocion's info better in general. That is to say, the info that's there--the IEE description is only half done, and some inter-type relations have overly pithy descriptions.

It is hard to get a consensus around here for exactly the reasons that you're addressing... I appreciate that you're trying to get to the bottom of it. I've always chalked it up to varying levels of understanding--but it's true, and Expat can speak to this I believe, even among Socionists, there are disputes regarding how to type. Awhile ago, Expat brought up an example regarding the typing of JFK that shocked me, i.e. some Russian Socionists typed him by how he 'embodied' his societal role as president (ENTp--in their opinion, the ideal American man--please correct me if I'm wrong, Expat,) not by his personal attributes (ENFj.) I'd argue that typing a 'role' this kinda defeats the point of typing a 'person...' But yeah, these differences of opinion exist, even among ppl who've been doing it for years.

I don't believe that there are many ppl here on this forum who type by role, fwiw.

[Expat]

but it's true, and Expat can speak to this I believe, even among Socionists, there are disputes regarding how to type. Awhile ago, Expat brought up an example regarding the typing of JFK that shocked me, i.e. some Russian Socionists typed him by how he 'embodied' his societal role as president (ENTp--in their opinion, the ideal American man--please correct me if I'm wrong, Expat,) not by his personal attributes (ENFj.) I'd argue that typing a 'role' this kinda defeats the point of typing a 'person...' But yeah, these differences of opinion exist, even among ppl who've been doing it for years.

The "consensus" typing for JFK among the Russians is ENTj (not ENTp). At least one site (socionics.org) also types his wife Jackie as ISFj.

Talking about historical typings with Igor Weisband, one of the earliest socionists, he told me that at least he, personally, typed Kennedy as ENTj because that was the "American society" type, and Kennedy seemed to personify the ideal American man; so, ergo, Kennedy's own type was ENTj -- And I guess that the same logic (not by Weisband, perhaps) deduced that since they seemed to be an "ideal couple", then Jackie was ISFj (the possibility that that "ideal" appearance was intentional does not seem to have occurred to them).

Likewise, he typed Oliver Cromwell as ENTp for similar reasons - he seemed to think that anyone introduducing supposedly "revolutionary ideas" is ENTp (his own type, by the way).

I obviously disagree with this approach; it may be useful to give a first hunch, but it must be checked against individual evidence. I've read more on JFK than I probably should have, and to me it's very easy to make the case of ENFj for him; and his wife was either ESFj or ENFj herself.

Now, I don't know how many Russian socionists use this kind of reasoning, but I daresay some of them do. On the other hand, some published Russian articles on historical figures's types - as on Napoleon, for instance - do show them using specific evidence.

[Expat]

It's interesting. I'm more attracted to types that aren't my dual, but I find that I would probably get along best with my dual. I'm not sure what socionics is saying exactly. I don't know if you're supposed to be attracted to your dual, or that you would find them to be a sort of "soulmate."

You can be "attracted" to a person, or to a type, for many reasons. In principle, what socionics says is that persons of your dual type are those with whom a close, longer-term relationship is the most favorable, comfortable, successful, etc - all other things being equal.

Other texts say that, indeed, you are attracted to your dual the moment you meet them -- well, I don't know that that's always the case.

Looking back at my own life, I have seen the pattern that I used to be attracted to, and inclined to start relationships with, ENFjs, which was sort of counter-productive.