Comments about making Enneagram-Socionics type correlations

[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.

[Mediator Kam]

I personally don't think SEIs can be 4s (this is just my feeling - no evidence to back it up whatsoever w00t) ... because I think an SEI's Si makes them too grounded in the here and now, in physical reality to be able to successfully go about recreating themselves identity-wise. I can see recreating their external image, behaviour etc ... but I can't even conceive of how you would go about recreating your identity as an Si-dominant type. An SEI's identity is tied up with how they relate to the world around them in a sensory way .... so in order to recreate their identity, it'd have to be a very conscious act involving deliberately ignoring their physical instincts or something - it would be more like simply acting. Which I've done in the past, but could never sustain as it tires me out exceedingly. The idea of recreating my identity certainly fascinates me, but I could never seriously entertain the idea because ... Idk - I am who I am who I am. I think that's related to my Si base. lol Reliance on my inate instincts. I don't think it's enough to say I strongly identify with the following - "Want/need/seek to discover or make an identity for his or her self" - therefore I must be a 4. I think nearly every person could relate to that to some degree at some point in their life. I mean I "want/need/seek to ...." but I've realised it's impossible for me to do. w00t I may be going out on a limb here, but I think all SEIs would come to that conclusion if they really know themselves - no matter how much they relate to that statement. I think it comes down to whether or not that motivation pretty much sums your motivations up as a person or not - and I think it can be pretty hard to separate your core motivation (if such a thing exists) from your needs/desires that have arisen from experiences in your life. So I don't think it's as easy as "read them all ... and whichever one you relate to most must be you".

I can quite easily change who I am. I'm an actor who loves to make people laugh. So take that you horse-girl who wears the blinders on the side so you can only see straight ahead of yourself.

[Phaedrus]

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.

I know the study, and I have seen the result, which only proves that those socionists participating in it were incompetent at comparing type descriptions from different typologies. And the names you mention have obviously not studied the correlations enough. The types are the same, and you are an idiot. Since you still haven't admitted your mistake regarding my type, you little piece of worm shit, I hope you will live the rest of your life in misery.

That there can be so many idiots among well-known socionists is a mystery. The four dimensions (dichotomies) are identical in MBTT and Socionics, and since they necessarily correlate with the types and the functions in such a way that it is correct to say the each type is defined by the four dimensions, it is not possible that the types are not identical in MBTT, Keirsey, and Socionics.

[Jarno]

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.

If I remember correctly Lytov only used a punche line or some words as a description of the mbti types. Which is an unfair test. (Ofcourse it could be that I'm wrong, but that's what I remember, if we're talking about the same test).

Not that I'm saying that mbti descriptions could be incorporated in socionics...the view angles are to different.

It might be nice to take this test on this forum, I could copy some descriptions out of a good MBTI book and see what people here guess.