Comments about making Enneagram-Socionics type correlations

[Robot]

To be honest your making correlations that don't make sense. Re ENFp INTj.

I can't speak for Jem, but what Jem says is consistent with dominant types. Of course people are complex, and enneatype is complex. If your friend really is an ISFp, then she is mistyping herself on enneagram.

If she understood the enneatype correctly, she would see how it all related to her. Of course the mumbo jumbo she mentions hasn't been explained by you (or her) - but it says two things, either she doesn't relate to a large part of enneagram 4, or she doesn't understand it enough yet.

I'm personally not a fan of typing people on enneagram with knowing nothing about them, especially over internet. But what you say about her being pulled in different directions, depending what she means by this, it could well be that of a 9.

Yes they are. Did you read it? I said ENFP and INTJ NOT ENFp and INTj. Myers briggs not socionics. The degree of complexity of ENFP 4s and INTJ 4s is the same or more than the degree of complexity of ISFp 4s.

LOOK AT THE CAPITOLS THIS TIME. ENFP does not equal ENFp.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Yes they are. Did you read it? I said ENFP and INTJ NOT ENFp and INTj. Myers briggs not socionics.

They are what? E4's? If you say so.

I'm not sure what you want people to do here.

Do you think someone who identifies with ENFP and INTJ descriptions are also ENFp's and INTj's? If you do then we can talk about the same thing in regards to what enneatype they would be, if you think they are not then I can't comment on what enneatypes these people might be at present.

I also thought your primary concern here was your ISFp friend, but now you are talking about all the types..on MBTT? We would need more data than what at the moment is a subjective typing of either two people or a group of people on more than one system. How were they typed? Is it valid? Are you with me?

Edit: I see you've edited your post, but I think what I say above still stands. Although i'll develop on a question..why doesn't ENFp = ENFP?

[calenwen]

I agree with/relate to what Jem said.

[Robot]

They are what? E4's? If you say so.

I'm not sure what you want people to do here.

Do you think someone who identifies with ENFP and INTJ descriptions are also ENFp's and INTj's? If you do then we can talk about the same thing in regards to what enneatype they would be, if you think they are not then I can't comment on what enneatypes these people might be at present.

I also thought your primary concern here was your ISFp friend, but now you are talking about all the types..on MBTT? We would need more data than what at the moment is a subjective typing of either two people or a group of people on more than one system. How were they typed? Is it valid? Are you with me?

Edit: I see you've edited your post, but I think what I say above still stands. Although i'll develop on a question..why doesn't ENFp = ENFP?

I'm not saying that all Myers Briggs INTJs and ENFPs are enenagram fours. Just that they can be. The reason I brought that up is because I feel if ISFp doesn't seem to fit with E4 maybe that doesn't matter because there is someone claming to be a 4 and because an MBTI ENFP or INTJ would also seem to not fit with E4...even more so than a socionics ISFp...but it's possible for those two MBTT types to be a four. Now do you get what I was saying?

ENFp doesn't = ENFP because when I type ENFp I'm referreing to a socionics ENFp not a myers briggs ENFP. I didn't mean you won't have any MBTT ENFPS that are socionics ENFps. I was using the "p" to distinguish which system I was referring to.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm not saying that all Myers Briggs INTJs and ENFPs are enenagram fours. Just that they can be. The reason I brought that up is because I feel if ISFp doesn't seem to fit with E4 maybe that doesn't matter because there is someone claming to be a 4 and because an MBTI ENFP or INTJ would also seem to not fit with E4...even more so than a socionics ISFp...but it's possible for those two MBTT types to be a four. Now do you get what I was saying?

You are saying the same thing as has been discussed on this thread already. Claiming to be a 4 and being a 4 is two different things. As I've already said, you've demonstrated your friend either doesn't understand the 4 or doesn't relate to the 4. You've also done no real studying on your own, so it is only your uninformed opinion that these socionic (or MBTT) types you mentioned can be a 4.

ENFp doesn't = ENFP because when I type ENFp I'm referreing to a socionics ENFp not a myers briggs ENFP. I didn't mean you won't have any MBTT ENFPS that are socionics ENFps. I was using the "p" to distinguish which system I was referring to.

This is irrelevant. I'm not sure what to say about your posting on this thread now. You need to study some more and have more knowledge to draw your conclusions on. I don't see it as my job just now to convince you otherwise in your current views. Considering you've already rejected an dominant's view here on how this cannot equate to type 4, what's the point in saying anything, if you're just going to reject it with mis-informed arguments?

[Robot]

You are saying the same thing as has been discussed on this thread already. Claiming to be a 4 and being a 4 is two different things. As I've already said, you've demonstrated your friend either doesn't understand the 4 or doesn't relate to the 4. You've also done no real studying on your own, so it is only your uninformed opinion that these socionic (or MBTT) types you mentioned can be a 4.
This is irrelevant. I'm not sure what to say about your posting on this thread now. You need to study some more and have more knowledge to draw your conclusions on. I don't see it as my job just now to convince you otherwise in your current views. Considering you've already rejected an dominant's view here on how this cannot equate to type 4, what's the point in saying anything, if you're just going to reject it with mis-informed arguments?

I think I've repeatedly misunderstood you and you've repeatedly misunderstood me.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I think I've repeatedly misunderstood you and you've repeatedly misunderstood me.

No, i've understood you. You just don't understand the types of all the systems yet, and how enneagram type 4 can't be applicable to a type with an base. Nor can it relate to a MBTT type with extraverted sensing in it's auxilary.

[Robot]

No, i've understood you. You just don't understand the types of all the systems yet, and how enneagram type 4 can't be applicable to a type with an base. Nor can it relate to a MBTT type with extraverted sensing in it's auxilary.

See now there I would disagree...you're saying that a myers briggs ISFP with extroverted sensing can't be a socionics ISFp with introverted sensing, correct?

Let me pull up of a definition of Myers Briggs extroverted sensing...IMO it doesn't conflict with socionics introverted sensing...

[Phaedrus]

Yes they are. Did you read it? I said ENFP and INTJ NOT ENFp and INTj. Myers briggs not socionics. The degree of complexity of ENFP 4s and INTJ 4s is the same or more than the degree of complexity of ISFp 4s.

LOOK AT THE CAPITOLS THIS TIME. ENFP does not equal ENFp.

Idiot. Ultimate moron. Brain-spinning brainwasher.

[Robot]

Idiot. Ultimate moron. Brain-spinning brainwasher.

You know, I wish that you WOULD prove that each MBTT type must be their exact same type in socionics. That would only prove my point that socionics INFjs and ISFps CAN be enneagram fours! There are tons of documented cases of MBTT INFJs and ISFPs that are fours.

Explain?

Socionics ENFp = ENFp
MBTT ENFP = ENFP

Big P. Little p.

Get it?

[Phaedrus]

You know, I wish that you WOULD prove that each MBTT type must be their exact same type in socionics.

There is no other "proof" than that the four dichotomies are exactly the same in MBTT and Socionics, that the type descriptions refer to the same groups of people, that the test questions for determining the correct types are almost identical in MBTI tests and Socionics tests, etc. The identity of the types is something you see, when you study these things for some years.

The identity of the types is obvious, and most serious socionists agree that they are. At least no one disputes that the introverted S types are extremely similar in both models. The LSI is the same type as the ISTJ, etc. That all the types are identical is something I have seen, and the only reason others don't accept it as a fact is because they haven't studied them properly. The functions theory in MBTT is of course total bullshit, and you should pay no attention to it. What we should be looking at, and agree on, is the typical behaviours and attitudes of each type, and in that perspective both MBTT and Socionics actually agree on the nature of the 16 types. But all type descriptions -- both in Socionics and in MBTT -- can be improved.

That would only prove my point that socionics INFjs and ISFps CAN be enneagram fours! There are tons of documented cases of MBTT INFJs and ISFPs that are fours.

No. No such evidence exists. INFjs can be 4s, and so can INFps. That's an empirical fact. But it is also an empirical fact that every 4 is an intuitive type, because type 4 is described as the most clearly intuitive of all the types in the Enneagram. If you want to put an ISFp in the group of 4s, you have to modify the Enneagram. But then you have a new model.

[Robot]

There is no other "proof" than that the four dichotomies are exactly the same in MBTT and Socionics, that the type descriptions refer to the same groups of people, that the test questions for determining the correct types are almost identical in MBTI tests and Socionics tests, etc. The identity of the types is something you see, when you study these things for some years.

The identity of the types is obvious, and most serious socionists agree that they are. At least no one disputes that the introverted S types are extremely similar in both models. The LSI is the same type as the ISTJ, etc. That all the types are identical is something I have seen, and the only reason others don't accept it as a fact is because they haven't studied them properly. The functions theory in MBTT is of course total bullshit, and you should pay no attention to it. What we should be looking at, and agree on, is the typical behaviours and attitudes of each type, and in that perspective both MBTT and Socionics actually agree on the nature of the 16 types. But all type descriptions -- both in Socionics and in MBTT -- can be improved.


No. No such evidence exists. INFjs can be 4s, and so can INFps. That's an empirical fact. But it is also an empirical fact that every 4 is an intuitive type, because type 4 is described as the most clearly intuitive of all the types in the Enneagram. If you want to put an ISFp in the group of 4s, you have to modify the Enneagram. But then you have a new model.

.

[Rick]

The identity of the types is obvious, and most serious socionists agree that they are.

Like who?

[Phaedrus]

Like who?

For example all of those who include MBTI and Keirsey tests at their socionic sites as well as links to the corresponding MBTT and Keirsey types side by side with their socionic type profiles. And even you must agree that the introverted sensory/sensing types are identical in behaviours and attitudes in MBTT and Socionics.

Do you take back your statement that I am probably an LSI and accept that I am an ILI?

[Rick]

For example all of those who include MBTI and Keirsey tests at their socionic sites as well as links to the corresponding MBTT and Keirsey types side by side with their socionic type profiles. And even you must agree that the introverted sensory/sensing types are identical in behaviours and attitudes in MBTT and Socionics.

I've heard many mentions of Myers-Briggs Typology and Keirseyan typology at socionics conferences in Kiev, and the overwhelming sentiment has been to view those as separate, non-identical typologies from socionics. There was a period in the early or mid 90s when socionists were enthusiastic about incorporating MBTT into socionics, but since then they have become deeply disenchanted with this. I can list those who have expressed this opinion: Bukalov, Karpenko, Chikirisova, Churyumov, Gulenko, Lytov, Yermak, Prokofieva, and others. Each of these people at some point made an investigation of Myers-Briggs type theory and tried to correlate it with socionics, but ultimately found the two too incongruous to merge. To demonstrate this point once and for all, Lytov made an interesting study where he gave socionists descriptions of Myers-Briggs types (without the type name at top) and asked them to say which socionic types they described. The result (I can dig it up if you want) showed that many of the Myers-Briggs descriptions were not recognizably similar to their supposed socionics counterparts. I believe Lytov (who is a careful researcher) chose the most well-known MBTI descriptions and disseminated them among the most prominent socionists.

[calenwen]

LOOK AT THE CAPITOLS THIS TIME. ENFP does not equal ENFp.

Explain?

[Robot]

That wasn't convincing at all. Explain better how Si conflicts with identity- seeking. If you have Si you are incapable of trying to figure out who you are? You are incapable of introspection?