Results 1 to 40 of 144

Thread: Comments about making Enneagram-Socionics type correlations

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  2. #2
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  4. #4
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    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...
    No i'm not saying that. You are saying that ISFP doesn't equal ISFp. Or are you saying that it does now? I'm trying to work out what you think! (I'm also trying to keep up with what appears to be you jumping from system to system.) Can you just calm down and focus on the here and now for a moment? You don't need to pull out a description of anything at the moment. Just clarify your position!

  5. #5
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    No i'm not saying that. You are saying that ISFP doesn't equal ISFp. Or are you saying that it does now? I'm trying to work out what you think! (I'm also trying to keep up with what appears to be you jumping from system to system.) Can you just calm down and focus on the here and now for a moment? You don't need to pull out a description of anything at the moment. Just clarify your position!
    Oh. Okay.

    I see a lot of similarities between the MBTT ISFP and the socionics ISFp. I don't necessarily think that if you're one you MUST be the other. But I'm guessing that if you're one you'll most likely be the other. I don't think we can say anything difinitively though...there's no real research on hand...apart from 2 ISFp socionists that claim to be kiersey ISFPs in that study in the other thread but obviously that's not enough to conclude anything.

    Hopefully my wording was understandable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •