Jung, Meyers-Briggs, and Socionics Rant

[Dmitri Lytov]

Winning at all costs seems like an SLI trait to me. That's what we're best at.

Maybe in some other system, but not in socionics. I've never heard this before. This trait, if it is even related to type at all, most socionists would associate with if anything.

Exactly.

Actually, Rick is correct. Assertions within a system can only be judged from within the system alone.

I agree, and I never wanted socionics to turn into a self-enclosed system. I can even add that MBTI guys have enormous achievements in experimental researches. However, their experimental researches are not reflected in their books. Only those few hundreds who subscribe Tom Carskadon's Journal of Psychological Type know about these researches, while MBTI books represent only ABC of typology.

[Phaedrus]

You must be an LIE or LII. They always seem to be the ones to catch me on my wording

Oh, no!
If you are right I am a LII, which I thought I was before entering these forums. But after many, many hours of hard work others (and myself) had almost succeeded in convincing me that I am an ILI ... So now I have to start all over again ...

[Phaedrus]

The statement is still true within the system of Soconics and all this says is that Socionics is not sufficiently similiar to reality by making assumptions that are not necessarily in agreement with reality.

Just to be clear, here you are using the word "true" in another sense than true.

[Phaedrus]

Furthermore, I put validity in italics to show that I am defining it in a very special way: specifically, validity as according to the system, and I believe that's what Rick was really arguing.

I thought he by "correct" meant "true". I that is not the case I fully agree.

[Rick]

You must be an LIE or LII. They always seem to be the ones to catch me on my wording

Oh, no!
If you are right I am a LII, which I thought I was before entering these forums. But after many, many hours of hard work others (and myself) had almost succeeded in convincing me that I am an ILI ... So now I have to start all over again ...

Don't take it too seriously . What you sent out was just a certain "signal" -- not necessarily about your type, but about your state of mind and your reactions at that particular moment. That doesn't necessarily mean you're a or type, but just that you were probably in a or state of mind at the moment you wrote it.

[Rick]

If you were going top argue Napoleon's type through socionics, then you must do it through intertype relationships (since that is supposed to be the "reference point" in socionics). Unfortunatly, that would be almost impossible to do. Socionic's definitions for the funcitons, however, are relatively flexible, and not set in stone. It would not be detrimental to the system to tweek the funcitonal descriptions.

So, if you are saying that SLIs are a bunch of spineless, lazy, pussies, then I would vehemetly disagree with you. And, no, that wouldn't contradict socionics theory. I have been called competative before, but there is no way, no how, I would fit into the Beta Quadra.

Intertype relations is the ultimate "test" of correct typing. However, that doesn't mean it is the primary method of typing, since it is possible only when 1) typing people you personally know well, or 2) when you have typed an entire group of people (say, historical figures who lived and worked together) and can make model their relationships and check how close you were. For example, I typed Steven Spielberg and George Lucas independently and postulated they were ILE and SEI, respectively (i.e. duals). Then I found out that they are in fact close friends and have done many movies together and have vacationed together in Hawaii on occasion. This is the sort of thing that can help confirm types of famous people. If socionists decided Napoleon was an SLI, for example, they would expect to find some IEE or at least EII types in his close proximity (close advisors, etc.).

No one's saying SLI's are spineless and lazy. Would that be appealing to types?? "Spinelessness" is a personality trait, not a socionics trait. Perhaps intuiters would more often be described as "spineless," but some sensers would fall into that group as well. Also, you don't have to be competitive to be Beta, and I'm not making any statement about your type. Competitiveness is at best loosely correlated to type. I am also competitive in certain spheres, just like most people. People tend to be most competitive in areas related to their leading functions and their principal non-socionic strengths (innate intelligence, physical strength, special talents, etc.)

A review of how socionists actually have typed famous people (http://www.socionics.us/celebrities/benchmark.shtml) will show that socionists find SLI's among writers, actors, singers, politicians, etc. In comparison, there is a larger proportion of generals and politicians among SLE's. Spineless and lazy people don't become famous at all.

[Dmitri Lytov]

I strongly disagree that SLIs are spineless and lazy. Maybe they seem to be that kind from the standpoint of American mentality, when people need to always demonstrate their activity, even meaningless activity, in order to not lose their job

SLIs just avoid making unnecessary motions; they prefer to make only such efforts for which they will be appreciated or get paid. SLIs do not tend to impose their will on other people; however, they are demanding to their family members. Unlike LSIs, SLIs do not require from their family members to keep certain "order" or "rules", but they need to watch their efficient actions.

There are many SLIs among politicians: for example, the former (recently killed) leader of Chechen terrorists Aslan Maskhadov.

[Rocky]

@Dmitri and Rick: so you guys consider the SEE to "win at all costs"?

I'd swear that is more of a Thinking trait, temporarily ignoring the interpersonal and moral bounderies... especially when Thinking is coupled with Sensing.

@Rick: I dislike appealing to authority and trying to prove things or argue by saying things like "A lot of well respected people have the opinion of..." blah blah blah. This may be surprising, but if you would ask most Keirsey followers, the "generally accepted" view of Napoleon was ENTJ.

But take a look at this quote by Frank McLynn from, "Napoleon: A Biography";

"The Corsican legacy may partly account for the ruthless pragmatism Napoleon's personality, the impatience with abstract theory and the conviction that, ultimately, human problems are solved by main force."

How could that be ENTJ! It breaks every Intuitive stereotype in the book.

So, no, I am not swayed by the generally accepted opinion.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rick]

@Dmitri and Rick: so you guys consider the SEE to "win at all costs"?

I'd swear that is more of a Thinking trait, temporarily ignoring the interpersonal and moral bounderies... especially when Thinking is coupled with Sensing.

@Rick: I dislike appealing to authority and trying to prove things or argue by saying things like "A lot of well respected people have the opinion of..." blah blah blah. This may be surprising, but if you would ask most Keirsey followers, the "generally accepted" view of Napoleon was ENTJ.

But take a look at this quote by Frank McLynn from, "Napoleon: A Biography";

"The Corsican legacy may partly account for the ruthless pragmatism Napoleon's personality, the impatience with abstract theory and the conviction that, ultimately, human problems are solved by main force."

How could that be ENTJ! It breaks every Intuitive stereotype in the book.

So, no, I am not swayed by the generally accepted opinion.

You can ignore generally accepted opinion when you 1) know the system that is being used and 2) have more information than others do, or have studied it more thoroughly.

All I'm saying is that you're making statements about Napoleon's socionic type based on unusual interpretations of socionics concepts (the vs. thing above, for one).

I accept the fact that in Kiersey's typology Napoleon is an ENTJ. Wonderful. That means that their ENTJ type allows for Napoleon-like people. But that has nothing to do with socionics. You're trying to lump all of these typologies into a single one. But Kiersey has his own view of types, and if their definitions allow for Napoleon to be an ENTJ in their system, then they've typed him 'correctly'. I can't tell them Napoleon is not a Kiersey-ENTJ until I've studied their typology closely, talked with Kiersey typologists, and figured out how and why they type. We can't take socionics or MBTT concepts and methods and foist them on Kiersey. This is exactly what this thread is about.

What I'm trying to say about generally accepted opinions is that they give very strong clues to what each type means for the given typology.

By the way, in socionics the "generally accepted view" is that Napoleon was SLE, which, in a socionics understanding, fits perfectly with the quote about Napoleon above.

[Rick]

@Dmitri and Rick: so you guys consider the SEE to "win at all costs"?

You're putting words in my (our) mouth. I said:

Rocky wrote:

Winning at all costs seems like an SLI trait to me. That's what we're best at.

Maybe in some other system, but not in socionics. I've never heard this before. This trait, if it is even related to type at all, most socionists would associate with if anything.

SEE's like to test their will against others' "for fun," as do SLE's. That's about all I can say. "Winning at all costs" I would call a mostly non-socionic trait that is perhaps slightly more often found among types.

[Phaedrus]

I accept the fact that in Kiersey's typology Napoleon is an ENTJ.

Don't - unless you think that Napoleon was an ENTj.

[Dmitri Lytov]

In my (and not only my) opinion, Napoleon was a SLE (or ESTp). Rick has placed on his site a link to automatic translation of the corresponding socionic research:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...-7/caesar.html

[Rocky]

OK, it's clear that no one is about to say, "You're right", but I would say I disagree that if Keirsey says that Napoelon was ENTJ, for example, than he should be considered ENTJ by his followers. Keirsey, and others, could always be wrong in evaluations.

Also, I would say that it was Napoleon's mother, Letizia, was the LIE, and his father, Carlo, was the SLE.

He didn't get along with either of them.

[Olga]

@Wym123
I like your and I would be happy for socionics to be empirically approved but I get this strange feeling when I read your posts and I guess some other people too. The feeling of too much rationality which is good for science but not quiet for socionics because socionics is not like exact science, it is about human world which has a huge dose of irrationality. I find socioncs exciting because it opens the door into the world of unknown. As regards to philosophy and morals - it is part and parcel of the human world as not everything can be described and understood in abstract, logical or scientific terms. Thanks God we still have got mysteries and puzzles.

@ Rocky
May be socionics does not agree with you mixing together two functions
and but it does fit perfectly into my theory which states: if you have introverted function as a base mode it does not mean that you are not good at - it is simply not your usual state as it does require an extra effort (to be loud, to be constantly around people and etc.) If we consider this two functions as a dimension so you can slip into at times but would prefer .
As regards to Napoleon, Cesar, Elvis Presly or whoever is the best to fit to ESFP/ESE is not that important. What is interesting - to understand where "winning at all costs" may belong to. I would say it is definetly so you definetly have got it, Rocky, you are strong in holding to your opinion and you are assertive for sure. If you remember the test of Veisband I have translated long time ego? It states that SLI have got cold persistance, correctness is very important for this type and... good taste! All this things I guess would contribute to being competitve, self-respect, assertiveness and.... winnign at all costs?
The difference between ESFP and ISTP was already mentioned by Dmitiri;
ISTP will only go for something which will make sense/benefit to him/her and ESFP does not need that extra sense as long as it may feel good.
I did not mention anything about SLE, may be I didn't grasp the idea how SLE got into the picture .

[Dmitri Lytov]

I did not mention anything about SLE, may be I didn't grasp the idea how SLE got into the picture

See my post above.

[Phaedrus]

The feeling of too much rationality which is good for science but not quiet for socionics because socionics is not like exact science, it is about human world which has a huge dose of irrationality.

I'm sorry, Olga, but what you say is false. There can't be too much rationality in Socionics or in science in general. If Socionics is not like an exact science, it should try to be, and the fact that the human world "has a huge dose of irrationality" is totally irrelevant. If you are doing research on a chaotic or irrational phenomenon, and think that it is a good thing if your theory about the phenomen also has a dose of irrationality in it, then you don't deserve to be called a scientist but a charlatan.

[Rocky]

@Olga: I guess the problem is trying to argue the functions? But it's not not uncommon knowledge that Napoleon demonstrated Introverted behavior.

Napoleon was described, in the McLynn Biography, as, "... a reserved, meditative loner who would turn to violence if provoked", and a "misanthropic recluse". It was also said that, "If Napoleon's academic progress at Brienne was fair, his social and personal formation was disastrous", and his Inspector-General declared him to have, "... a docile expression, mild, straightforward, thoughtful." (You can see Napoleon's expression in portraits). Even Napoleon's brother, Lucien, thought of him this way, "Napoleon was broody and withdrawn, greeted him without affection and showed no tenderness or kindness."

... and of course the quotes by Napoleon which I've posted before...

“If I always appear prepared, it is because before entering an undertaking, I have meditated long and have foreseen what might occur. It is not genius where reveals to me suddenly and secretly what I should do in circumstances unexpected by others; it is thought and preparation.”

“The best cure for the body is a quiet mind.”

~ Napoleon

Believe me, there are countless examples of SLI/ISTP behavior of Napoleon that you can find if you look for it. I think the problem may be that some people are nit-picking with the / thing and missing everything else I say about him.

[wym123]

@Wym123
I like your and I would be happy for socionics to be empirically approved but I get this strange feeling when I read your posts and I guess some other people too. The feeling of too much rationality which is good for science but not quiet for socionics because socionics is not like exact science, it is about human world which has a huge dose of irrationality. I find socioncs exciting because it opens the door into the world of unknown. As regards to philosophy and morals - it is part and parcel of the human world as not everything can be described and understood in abstract, logical or scientific terms. Thanks God we still have got mysteries and puzzles.

I don't know whether it is my feeling/ethical side developing (if that even makes sense) but I am now aware of the destructiveness of my arguments and am a lot more held back particularly towards those that are not as gifted in debates and have not offended me. I disagree with a lot of what you are saying, and am sorely tempted to hold arguments about them and refute them, but I have decided not to pursue them. At least my question is answered in that I understand what you meant by "morals" now. Your usage of the word isn't quite what I originally had in mind as I was thinking more in terms of ethics.

[Raver]

@Wym123
I like your and I would be happy for socionics to be empirically approved but I get this strange feeling when I read your posts and I guess some other people too. The feeling of too much rationality which is good for science but not quiet for socionics because socionics is not like exact science, it is about human world which has a huge dose of irrationality. I find socioncs exciting because it opens the door into the world of unknown. As regards to philosophy and morals - it is part and parcel of the human world as not everything can be described and understood in abstract, logical or scientific terms. Thanks God we still have got mysteries and puzzles.

I don't know whether it is my feeling/ethical side developing (if that even makes sense) but I am now aware of the destructiveness of my arguments and am a lot more held back particularly towards those that are not as gifted in debates and have not offended me. I disagree with a lot of what you are saying, and am sorely tempted to hold arguments about them and refute them, but I have decided not to pursue them. At least my question is answered in that I understand what you meant by "morals" now. Your usage of the word isn't quite what I originally had in mind as I was thinking more in terms of ethics.

Every time I have a debate with someone, it usually ends with the opponent refusing to say anything else on the matter. When I argue, I always try to find the positives and negatives. That way I can appreciate my opponent's understanding and then in the same time argue against what I feel is wrong. I love to argue, though it always ends with opponent's lack of response. I always felt was that he/she did not want to waste their time with me or hopefully they agreed with what I was saying.

[wym123]

Every time I have a debate with someone, it usually ends with the opponent refusing to say anything else on the matter. When I argue, I always try to find the positives and negatives. That way I can appreciate my opponent's understanding and then in the same time argue against what I feel is wrong. I love to argue, though it always ends with opponent's lack of response. I always felt was that he/she did not want to waste their time with me or hopefully they agreed with what I was saying.

I am not sure I understood what you meant by "appreciate my opponent's understanding." If you mean to understand where my opponent is coming from and acknowledge the set of knowledge that my opponent is using to form his or her understanding, then yes, I naturally try to do that all that time. If you mean understand my opponent's viewpoint and consider it as an alternate but equally valid viewpoint, even though I disagree with the underlying assumptions and knowledge, hence deem them to be incorrect, then this is something I cannot do. I really do believe that people (and I do not exclude myself) can be wrong about a matter because their knowledge is lacking and flawed. I have written about this in this forum (I actually hold much more thorough opinions):

People can definitely hold certain opinions about things but I do not believe that all opinions/positions are equally correct though I cannot provide a deductive proof of this. One of the ways I justify this point of view is: let's assume that everyone is equally knowledgeable about everything. Wouldn't it be logical that everyone would come to the same conclusions about everything and that there were no disagreements? Hence for every problem/question there is usually only one conclusions that everyone would agree on and differences in opinions is the result of differences in knowledge, and hence differences in assumption. However, it is clear that not all knowledge is require to come to a conclusion because the scope of the problem in question could be very limited. Hence, there is usually (but not always) a small subset of knowledge that is relevant and the one who is holding the most assumptions that are in agreement with this set of knowledge is probably drawing the best conclusions. Hence, certain positions are better than others.

[Raver]

Every time I have a debate with someone, it usually ends with the opponent refusing to say anything else on the matter. When I argue, I always try to find the positives and negatives. That way I can appreciate my opponent's understanding and then in the same time argue against what I feel is wrong. I love to argue, though it always ends with opponent's lack of response. I always felt was that he/she did not want to waste their time with me or hopefully they agreed with what I was saying.

I am not sure I understood what you meant by "appreciate my opponent's understanding." If you mean to understand where my opponent is coming from and acknowledge the set of knowledge that my opponent is using to form his or her understanding, then yes, I naturally try to do that all that time. If you mean understand my opponent's viewpoint and consider it as an alternate but equally valid viewpoint, even though I disagree with the underlying assumptions and knowledge, hence deem them to be incorrect, then this is something I cannot do. I really do believe that people (and I do not exclude myself) can be wrong about a matter because their knowledge is lacking and flawed. I have written about this in this forum (I actually hold much more thorough opinions):

I guess what I meant is see things through their perspective and then appreciate their understanding from that opposing angle. Every time I argue with someone I always do this. That way I know which points to argue and which points to agree with because my opponent supercedes me in knowledge and understanding. So, I always end up arguing with half of their argument and agreeing with the other half.

You are correct that some people's opinions are more valid than others, however even the weaker opponent in the argument has some truth because there will always be different sides for the same issue.

[Creepy-]

The feeling of too much rationality which is good for science but not quiet for socionics because socionics is not like exact science, it is about human world which has a huge dose of irrationality. I find socioncs exciting because it opens the door into the world of unknown. As regards to philosophy and morals - it is part and parcel of the human world as not everything can be described and understood in abstract, logical or scientific terms. Thanks God we still have got mysteries and puzzles.

I think without "too much rationality" Socionics is no better than astrology (so why would we even be discussing it?). I don't mean that Socionics should be exact or mathematical (especially because the things it measures aren't particularly quantifiable). Also, If a system doesn't have exact statements then there is no use for it (even religion has exact statements, i.e. the Nicene Creed). There is a gap between ideas and "reality", so they don't need to be a perfect match as long as they are still relevent to each other even with the natural incongruity. Ideas should be perfect but "reality" has no need to be.

[wym123]

I guess what I meant is see things through their perspective and then appreciate their understanding from that opposing angle. Every time I argue with someone I always do this. That way I know which points to argue and which points to agree with because my opponent supercedes me in knowledge and understanding. So, I always end up arguing with half of their argument and agreeing with the other half.

You are correct that some people's opinions are more valid than others, however even the weaker opponent in the argument has some truth because there will always be different sides for the same issue.

You are not being clear. Are you agreeing for the sake of agreeing (to satisfy your 50/50 rule) or are you agreeing because you really do agree? What if you think everything they say is wrong? Would you still try to agree with half of it?

Are you doing the 50/50 thing right now?

Here is where you agree with me

You are correct that some people's opinions are more valid than others

Here is where you disagree with me

however even the weaker opponent in the argument has some truth because there will always be different sides for the same issue

It really appears to me that you are contradicting yourself or being vague about your position.

[Raver]

I guess what I meant is see things through their perspective and then appreciate their understanding from that opposing angle. Every time I argue with someone I always do this. That way I know which points to argue and which points to agree with because my opponent supercedes me in knowledge and understanding. So, I always end up arguing with half of their argument and agreeing with the other half.

You are correct that some people's opinions are more valid than others, however even the weaker opponent in the argument has some truth because there will always be different sides for the same issue.

You are not being clear. Are you agreeing for the sake of agreeing (to satisfy your 50/50 rule) or are you agreeing because you really do agree? What if you think everything they say is wrong? Would you still try to agree with half of it?

Are you doing the 50/50 thing right now?

Here is where you agree with me

You are correct that some people's opinions are more valid than others

Here is where you disagree with me

however even the weaker opponent in the argument has some truth because there will always be different sides for the same issue

It really appears to me that you are contradicting yourself or being vague about your position.

Well, I usually tend to always be close to 50/50, it's not precisely 50/50, it's more like 30/70 or 65/35 if you know what I mean. I believe the reason the argument is lasting with both opposing sides still holding on their belief is because each of them is valid, but they are valid in different areas. However, the problem comes when one person tries to prove his or her validity without caring about where their opponent might be right.

Well, it does seem contradicting in the way I said it. I'm just saying that even though one person is winning the argument and is more correct, the weaker opponent still has some truth, just a lot less than his opponent. The weaker opponent basically holds on to that belief so strongly that he/she could become oblivious that they are wrong. The strong opponent will frown on the weaker opponent due to the high amount of errors and lack of validity in their argument. It will result in not noticing that the weaker opponent is just holding on to very small valid argument.

It's kind of like a tug of war and the stronger opponent is winning the battle and it is very apparent. However, the weaker opponent may not notice this because he/she is still strong enough to not fall over because of his powerful wrists. The weaker opponent becomes overly confident and is blind to the fact that he/she is losing and the stronger opponent fails to see that the weakling has strength at one area or at all.

I hope that makes sense.

[wym123]

Well, I usually tend to always be close to 50/50, it's not precisely 50/50, it's more like 30/70 or 65/35 if you know what I mean. I believe the reason the argument is lasting with both opposing sides still holding on their belief is because each of them is valid, but they are valid in different areas. However, the problem comes when one person tries to prove his or her validity without caring about where their opponent might be right.

Well, it does seem contradicting in the way I said it. I'm just saying that even though one person is winning the argument and is more correct, the weaker opponent still has some truth, just a lot less than his opponent. The weaker opponent basically holds on to that belief so strongly that he/she could become oblivious that they are wrong. The strong opponent will frown on the weaker opponent due to the high amount of errors and lack of validity in their argument. It will result in not noticing that the weaker opponent is just holding on to very small valid argument.


It's kind of like a tug of war and the stronger opponent is winning the battle and it is very apparent. However, the weaker opponent may not notice this because he/she is still strong enough to not fall over because of his powerful wrists. The weaker opponent becomes overly confident and is blind to the fact that he/she is losing and the stronger opponent fails to see that the weakling has strength at one area or at all.

I hope that makes sense.

Basically, you agree for the sake of agreeing, not because you actually agree. You may not fully understand what you are agreeing to but because you are diplomatic and would just want to cease the debate, therefore you are willing to concede a portion of the debate so everyone can go home happy.

I have vastly different opinions about why arguments last long. In general, it is because one side is being idiotic or both sides are being idiotic. Though I do acknowledge the possibility of your scenario, I just don't find it happening too often. I have been in two annoying debates in this forums (with the same person), and in one of them, the arguments did not come to a conclusion because the opponent refused to admit that he was wrong for dishonorable reasons even though I thought the opponent was wrong and the opponent probably thought so too. Perhaps the only time I have seen your scenario is when there is miscommunication but that doesn't happen too often if both debaters are knowledgeable and have no initial assumptions about each other. When there is no miscommunication, I really don't see how the stronger debater would fail to acknowledge a valid point of the weaker debater, unless the stronger debater is also an idiot.

[Rick]

Napoleon was described, in the McLynn Biography, as, "... a reserved, meditative loner who would turn to violence if provoked", and a "misanthropic recluse". It was also said that, "If Napoleon's academic progress at Brienne was fair, his social and personal formation was disastrous", and his Inspector-General declared him to have, "... a docile expression, mild, straightforward, thoughtful." (You can see Napoleon's expression in portraits). Even Napoleon's brother, Lucien, thought of him this way, "Napoleon was broody and withdrawn, greeted him without affection and showed no tenderness or kindness."

Rocky, do you have links to more detailed info on Napoleon's personality?

This description in and of itself does not disprove SLE. Extraverts can be like this, too.

[Rocky]

Napoleon was described, in the McLynn Biography, as, "... a reserved, meditative loner who would turn to violence if provoked", and a "misanthropic recluse". It was also said that, "If Napoleon's academic progress at Brienne was fair, his social and personal formation was disastrous", and his Inspector-General declared him to have, "... a docile expression, mild, straightforward, thoughtful." (You can see Napoleon's expression in portraits). Even Napoleon's brother, Lucien, thought of him this way, "Napoleon was broody and withdrawn, greeted him without affection and showed no tenderness or kindness."

Rocky, do you have links to more detailed info on Napoleon's personality?

This description in and of itself does not disprove SLE. Extraverts can be like this, too.

No... I said I got in from the Biography.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/155...lance&n=283155

[Rick]

Napoleon:

Amazon.com
Napoleon Bonaparte was a bully, rude and insulting. Women did not like him. But even so, writes Frank McLynn, "he had an amazing ability to sway other men to his purposes," which earned him one of the greatest empires Europe had ever known. McLynn, a noted biographer of difficult personalities, gives us a many-sided Napoleon: the shrewd strategist, the intolerant prude, the scrappy fighter, the charismatic leader, the sadist. ("He liked to strike people of both sexes, to slap them, pull their hair, pinch their ears and tweak their noses.") He nonetheless managed to extend French rule to the gates of Moscow. Why, then, was he so resoundingly defeated? McLynn argues that, among other things, Napoleon was not ruthless enough in dealing with the "endless list of ingrates" that surrounded him.

This fits the stereotype (as it relates to authoritarian leaders.

[Raver]

Basically, you agree for the sake of agreeing, not because you actually agree. You may not fully understand what you are agreeing to but because you are diplomatic and would just want to cease the debate, therefore you are willing to concede a portion of the debate so everyone can go home happy.

Well, you are correct that I am agreeing partly because I want to be diplomatic and everyone can go home happy. Though, if I am agreeing it usually is because I am actually agreeing with a portion of the debate, but not with another portion. That means I understand the person's point of view, but only that portion. However, my main point which you already know is that during an argument noone is 100% right and the other person is 0% right. It is usually mixed with someone being slightly more right than the other person. The key to a good ending is for the winner and the loser to acknowledge where they are right and where they are wrong. However, there are some points in the debate that noone was right or wrong. No matter how wrong the loser might appear, there is always something that they are right about their position and that is the reason they are arguing. I have not experienced it in this forum, though it is just that sometimes either the loser or the winner may be too stubborn to admit defeat or a partial loss.

I have vastly different opinions about why arguments last long. In general, it is because one side is being idiotic or both sides are being idiotic. Though I do acknowledge the possibility of your scenario, I just don't find it happening too often. I have been in two annoying debates in this forums (with the same person), and in one of them, the arguments did not come to a conclusion because the opponent refused to admit that he was wrong for dishonorable reasons even though I thought the opponent was wrong and the opponent probably thought so too. Perhaps the only time I have seen your scenario is when there is miscommunication but that doesn't happen too often if both debaters are knowledgeable and have no initial assumptions about each other. When there is no miscommunication, I really don't see how the stronger debater would fail to acknowledge a valid point of the weaker debater, unless the stronger debater is also an idiot.

I agree with what your saying that it does not happen that often. Though if the stronger debaters are not acknowledging a valid point of the weaker debater does not necessarily mean they are idiots. It usually means that they are blinded from their own pride and righteousness that they may not see where they are wrong and the other people are right.

[Phaedrus]

However, my main point which you already know is that during an argument noone is 100% right and the other person is 0% right.

Ridiculous. If you claim that 14+8=22 and I argue that 14+8=23, you are 100 % right and I am 100 % wrong. If I argue that there is at least some truth in Socionics, and another person argues that Socionics is 100 % gibberish, then I am 100 % right and the other person 100 % wrong. There are countless examples to prove the contrary of your above statement. Too much diplomacy is not good for your ability to think clearly, Young_and_Confused.

[Raver]

However, my main point which you already know is that during an argument noone is 100% right and the other person is 0% right.

Ridiculous. If you claim that 14+8=22 and I argue that 14+8=23, you are 100 % right and I am 100 % wrong. If I argue that there is at least some truth in Socionics, and another person argues that Socionics is 100 % gibberish, then I am 100 % right and the other person 100 % wrong. There are countless examples to prove the contrary of your above statement. Too much diplomacy is not good for your ability to think clearly, Young_and_Confused.

Well I understand what your saying, of course then it depends on the angle you look at it. There are some arguments where someone is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong and there are other arguments where it is mixed. It depends whether you are arguing about fact or opinion.

Example #1: If me and you are arguing about nuclear waste:

I believe that if you roll around nuclear waste for an hour you will get a minor cold.

You are arguing that rolling with anything toxic enough can have serious consequences such as cancer.

In this case, you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong.

Example #2: If me and you are arguing taxes:

I believe that the government should higher taxes so we could have a better quality of living.

You believe that the government should lower taxes so we could have more freedom with our money and the government should have less financial control.

In this case, noone is 100% right or 100% wrong since it deals with opinion. I may have some points that are correct/wrong for my belief and you will have points that are correct/wrong for your belief.

[diamond]

Cool thread. Don't know why I never read it before. The distinctions made by Lytov and Rick helped clarify a lot about socionics. Thanks!

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Phaedrus]

Example #2: If me and you are arguing taxes:

I believe that the government should higher taxes so we could have a better quality of living.

You believe that the government should lower taxes so we could have more freedom with our money and the government should have less financial control.

In this case, noone is 100% right or 100% wrong since it deals with opinion. I may have some points that are correct/wrong for my belief and you will have points that are correct/wrong for your belief.

How can you be so sure that no one can be 100 % right or wrong in this example? If both you and I are lazy, we could agree not to continue the discussion, but if we are interested in finding the truth about the matter, we shouldn't stop at this point.

One way to proceed would be to investigate the question which of the two values "quality of living" and "freedom with our money" is the most valuable and why. The topic could be very complex, of course, but that is no good argument for the claim that it is just a matter of opinion. If moral objectivism is true (and there are many philosophers who can argue quite convincingly for that to be the case), then we should expect one of us to be right about the tax issue and the other to be wrong. So far you have not given us any reason to believe that there can't be an objectively true answer to the question: Should the government higher taxes or should the government lower taxes?

[FDG]

I believe that the government should higher taxes so we could have a better quality of living.

You are 100 percent wrong, in this case too, even if I won't bother with the whole causes and explanations since this topic is already too Off-Topic.

Just know that you're 100 percent wrong.

Anyway, I think that your mode of arguing is totally wrong. If we reduce the hypothesys of Person A and Person B to formal logic, one of the two will be T and the other one F, if both parties agree on the basic assumptions.

[wym123]

Example #2: If me and you are arguing taxes:

I believe that the government should higher taxes so we could have a better quality of living.

You believe that the government should lower taxes so we could have more freedom with our money and the government should have less financial control.

In this case, noone is 100% right or 100% wrong since it deals with opinion. I may have some points that are correct/wrong for my belief and you will have points that are correct/wrong for your belief.

Actually, one person is right but we just don't know which because we don't have more information. That's a subtle distinction.

Given a metric for gain that we can all agree on, then, it is quite possible to acknowledge that the gains associated with raising taxes is much lower than the gains associated with lower taxes. You can argue that such a metric is impossible to construct because it is not possible to get unanimous agreement. However, disagreement is exactly the consequence of people simply having different sets of knowledge about things. One group might want to construct a metric such that gains with raising taxes are better, and another group might want a metric that gives a different result. However, if everyone had the same knowledge, wouldn't you agree that there is a metric that we would agree on?

Of course, your example is a poor example, since fiscal policy is such a pervasive matter that it is very difficult for one to understand everything related to it, hence it in a typical debate it is very easy to to construct an persuasive argument for the "other side" that the debater did not anticipate.

I agree with what your saying that it does not happen that often. Though if the stronger debaters are not acknowledging a valid point of the weaker debater does not necessarily mean they are idiots. It usually means that they are blinded from their own pride and righteousness that they may not see where they are wrong and the other people are right.

That's part of my definition for an idiot. I do not mean someone that's "stupid," rather I am talking about a stubborn person that cannot think and learn.

If moral objectivism is true (and there are many philosophers who can argue quite convincingly for that to be the case), then we should expect one of us to be right about the tax issue and the other to be wrong.

If I remember correctly Moral Relativism (not the same as the idea in the quote) is full of holes and has already been refuted (not 100% sure about that). In a lot ways, I liken Moral Relativism as an ethical maxim for the philosophically stupid and lazy in today's global society where respecting false/wrong ideas and political correctness reins free (Some of the stuff that I hear about other countries are just plain wrong but too bad we can't do anything about it because Moral Relativism is the hip thing in town).

[FDG]

I want wym's brain.

[Olga]

I tried to look the link about Napoleon recomended by Dmitri but it does not open. I am not that bothered at the end who was Napoleon, we have got a distinctive description of a type and that is what matters. If Rocky believes it was ISTP and Dmitri ESTP and somebody else ESFP, we can not prove it as the person is dead. On the other hand what you need to take into account that the person can be healthy or sick and the differences within the type are not yet described.

@Young and Confused: If I didn't answer any of your posts it may be because i find it difficult to understand and not sure what to say. In your links I can not describe you with those words as I don't know you. I can be also lazy/impatient if I see that the post needs my energy.

@Wym123 I would be happy to debate with you but we may talk different langauges and I am not sure how far we can understand each other. Sometimes people stop replying because there is nothing much they can add, sometimes they may feel bored or they feel that the opponent is simply not able to understand them! I do like to debate too if I feel that I can contribute.

Too much rationality means we have to keep a healthy balance of all functions in exploring and describing socionics and of course the balnce between rationality and irrationality. If we are talking about social science it will differ from exact science. The reality is always bigger than science and this is important to bear in mind. We shall not be able to understand people if we shall not take into account their irrationality, if we shall not understand what irrationality is and what role it plays in our lives.

I always struggled with finding words to express myself. It may be because my knowledge of concept is not that strong -abstract logical thinking. So I might be not exact or clear as I use the words primarily to express my feelings . We all have got different gifts and do not want to judge anybody. But I do understand the importance of debate - the way to keep balance between functions as we don't want socionincs to be just far from the reality of life, or just as it is not a moral code...and etc. We definetly want socionincs to be more than astrology as we wish it to be a reliable tool or some sort of guidance to help people to manage their lifes.

[tcaudilllg]

A system that does not conform to experience is useless for any practical aim, and therefore worthless.

Period.

Quite frankly I think, and this is from my own experience, that Napoleon had undifferentiated T and F. So to say, he was a ENxJ crosstype. He prioritized elimination of his enemy over coming to peace with them. That's a trait of the id. I've known people like that... and they very closely resemble Napoleon.

Napoleonic tactics: the "strategy of annihilation".

When undifferentiation is taken into account, the mystery associated with these otherwise enigmatic individuals quickly vanishes. However, we have the case in which both MBTI and Socionics--therefore the entire professional population disposition toward typology save the Jungians (who are uninterested in accuracy in the first place)--have willfully disavowed the very possibility, even though undifferentiation has been linked to numerous psychological "disorders". I think the real debate is not which of the two reigning sides is right, but rather why they do not conform precisely to experience when a very simple argument for precision exists directly before them.