Jung, Meyers-Briggs, and Socionics Rant

[Rocky]

WOW... what justification do you have for Napoleon being an Intuitive... AT ALL? Every inch of his existance is contrasting to that. From his dislike of abstract theory, to his physical brashness, to poor preformance in languges but interest in geography, to his pragmatic attitude, to everything. Nothing I have ever read on Napoleon made me think, "That really sounds like an Intuitive".

[Phaedrus]

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).

You can be 100 % sure of that. In fact, every non-trivial version of relativism in any field of human knowledge has been refuted since the days of the ancient Greeks. It is not too difficult to do that, because relativism (in the non-trivial sense) is a self-contradictory doctrine. It is much harder to get the relativists themselves to realize that they are wrong.

Their defense strategy is usually to oscillate between the self-contradictory and the trivial pole. If you manage to demonstrate that they are contradicting themselves, they re-define their position so it becomes more trivial, and when you finally realize that and point out that you agree with them, but that what they say is trivial and not very interesting, they automatically start to oscillate back to a contradictory, but more interesting version of relativism again.

[Eidos]

I see a tendency for people here and elsewhere to assume that these three systems are all about the same thing, and that with a little bit of effort, they can be rephrased to arrive at a "common system" that combines all of them. People are saying MBTT is "wrong" because it doesn't take into consideration some things that socionics does. Socionics descriptions are "wrong" because they stray from Jung. Etc. etc.

This is incorrect. The systems appear similar, but they are not the same. It is incorrect to say that MBTT descriptions are "not quite accurate," and that by "helping them out" with some socionics concepts, we will somehow improve their system. Or that by sticking to Jung's functional descriptions, we will "help out" socionics.

Each typology is autonomous and stands on its own. The correctness of any assertion within any of these systems can only be judged from within that system. There are three different concepts of introversion/extraversion. Three different concepts of J/P or rationality/irrationality, etc.

Even if the descriptions of these and other concepts appear to be nearly the same, there are always implicit assumptions and unstated practices within each system that differ from the others. In other words, you can have two very similar descriptions of extraversion/introversion, but very different approaches to identifying this dichotomy. Socionists have different criteria for identifying dichotomies than Meyers-Briggs typologists. Although socionists also differ among themselves, they collectively gravitate towards a set of approaches that is distinctly different from MBTT or even Jung. Each typology and set of practical approaches is internally consistent. You cannot say that a socionics approach is "wrong" based on a Jungian or MBTT understanding, -- only based on a socionics understanding.

Socionics can define its terms any way it sees fit. The only ultimate criteria for evaluating the "correctness" of socionics definitions are, "Is this logically consistent with the rest of socionics?" and "Does this help explain interaction?" "Because Jung says it differently" or "because my mother is not like this, but she is INTj for sure" are not really valid arguments.

Likewise, MBTT can define its terms how it pleases, with its somewhat different criteria -- "Is this logically consistent with the rest of MBTT?" and "Does this help explain personality?"

These are two different paths, and they lead to different places.

I'm basically reacting here to people's attempts to create their own home-grown strains of socionics (usually mixtures with other typologies) and promote them as "socionics," while ignoring accepted views among actual socionists.

I see what you mean, but here's my perspective:

Different theories do indeed have different definitions of sets of behaviors. For example, in the MBTI, Socionics, Keirsey systems the criteria for scales that have the same name do not exactly match. They are, however, very similar.

Theories are just models and simplifications of reality. They are not reality. Theories need to be put to a test. This is the principle of the scientific method. The reality, i.e. human behavior, is the same regardless of the systems. The object of study is identical: human beings. Therefor, some models are better adjusted to this reality than others. The way to figure out which model fits reality better is to test it.

Ultimately, each system has its flaws. There is no need for so many systems of typology. They are all trying to describe the same thing. It's better to make a bigger, more powerful model of behavior that will encompass that qualities and overcome the flaws of the other models. By testing each model, you can identify where it falls short.

It is possible to put the typology theories to a test. The real reason why it has never been done by scientists is because it does not interest them. There is, to put it simply, no evidence in the scientific litterature that it makes any sense to have typology rather than a more descriptive system like the big 5. No serious scientist in personality psychology today would put money into researching typology, be it mbti, keirsey or socionics. These typologies are more interesting to lay people that academics. They are more practical, simplistic and can be easily sold by consultants.

My opinion is that type theory has more potential as a business product than true description of human behavior. However, I think that it's possible to make a bigger, better product that will become the new standard of personality system.

[Rick]

Theories are just models and simplifications of reality. They are not reality. Theories need to be put to a test. This is the principle of the scientific method. The reality, i.e. human behavior, is the same regardless of the systems. The object of study is identical: human beings. Therefor, some models are better adjusted to this reality than others. The way to figure out which model fits reality better is to test it.

In actuality, the object of study of each typology is different. MBTI studies personality. Kiersey studies something similar, but with a different twist. Socionics studies perceptual differences that influence relationships. These emphases are significant enough to create great discrepancies in typing.

Ultimately, each system has its flaws. There is no need for so many systems of typology. They are all trying to describe the same thing. It's better to make a bigger, more powerful model of behavior that will encompass that qualities and overcome the flaws of the other models. By testing each model, you can identify where it falls short.

There is no need for so many religions...
Actually, we think socionics is the bigger, more powerful model that encompasses the other systems.

It is possible to put the typology theories to a test. The real reason why it has never been done by scientists is because it does not interest them. There is, to put it simply, no evidence in the scientific litterature that it makes any sense to have typology rather than a more descriptive system like the big 5. No serious scientist in personality psychology today would put money into researching typology, be it mbti, keirsey or socionics. These typologies are more interesting to lay people that academics. They are more practical, simplistic and can be easily sold by consultants.

I understand what you're saying about empiricism. We've had these discussions here before. From the standpoint of algorithmic empirical science, there is "nothing to study" in these areas.

Actually, I disagree that socionics is "more practical and simplistic." On the contrary. What is more simplistic than the Big 5? And does the Big 5 have any applications? None at all. Such is empirical science. Each time we create a "practical application," we are adding an element of subjective interpretation with unspoken values ("state A is more desirable than state B").

My opinion is that type theory has more potential as a business product than true description of human behavior. However, I think that it's possible to make a bigger, better product that will become the new standard of personality system.

Does empirical science have any descriptions (models) of human behavior to offer?

Has empirical science discovered any mechanisms of psychological comfort and compatibility?

I am curious, especially about the second. In these areas of thought empiricism lags far behind "intuitive" models that are based not on experiments, but on self-evident psychological facts.

[Eidos]

Hi Rick,

In actuality, the object of study of each typology is different. MBTI studies personality. Kiersey studies something similar, but with a different twist. Socionics studies perceptual differences that influence relationships. These emphases are significant enough to create great discrepancies in typing.

That's true, but I feel as though the delimitations aren't entirely clear. Ultimately, they study individual differences among human beings... They approach differently from a theoretical point of view depending on their conceptions of personality, cognitive processes, behavior and how these are related to each other.

Actually, we think socionics is the bigger, more powerful model that encompasses the other systems.

Maybe We can't really be sure without putting it to a test.

I understand what you're saying about empiricism. We've had these discussions here before. From the standpoint of algorithmic empirical science, there is "nothing to study" in these areas.

Actually, I disagree that socionics is "more practical and simplistic." On the contrary. What is more simplistic than the Big 5? And does the Big 5 have any applications? None at all. Such is empirical science. Each time we create a "practical application," we are adding an element of subjective interpretation with unspoken values ("state A is more desirable than state B").

What I mean is that typologies are more simplistic because they seek to regroup into categories traits that are in fact (as shown by research) continuous and distributed in a "bell curve" (i.e. most people have average scores, few are clearly polarized). An individual which is, say 45 % Extraverted will get categorized as an Introvert, and a 55 % Extraverted will get categorized as an Extravert. In reality, these people will be much closer in their personality/behavior than the typology would allow. When you make categories, you lose alot of information about the exact point at which people stand. In that sense, typology is a simplification. Although, I agree with you that from a theoretical point of view, the big five is simple, and Socionics is more complex. The Big Five has few applications and has not gained popular interest because it stays basic - but the reason for this is that there is little research that show that it could go beyond that point. Theories that are more holistic, like Socionics (and MBTI) have an intuitive appeal to them that makes them easier to apply. They encompass more general principles, but the danger is that they sometimes go too far and generalize things that they shouldn't... or become disconnected from reality. For research, when you need very reliable and valid measures, the Big Five is the standard exactly because it is modest in scope.

Does empirical science have any descriptions (models) of human behavior to offer?

There are some nice models of human behavior. They are little models of individual differences, and it's true that a strong encompassing theory is lacking. The problem, scientists would argue, is that "personality" is a very vague concept and has not been found to predict things very well. It seems as though the "situation" is better able to predict behavior in some circumstances.

Has empirical science discovered any mechanisms of psychological comfort and compatibility?

Yes, but not really in terms of individual differences. They have discovered how different "styles" of communication can work together and make an easier relationship or not.

Since it refuses typologies for lack of evidence, it does not consider how different "types" can interact.

I am curious, especially about the second. In these areas of thought empiricism lags far behind "intuitive" models that are based not on experiments, but on self-evident psychological facts.

Intuition is a two-sided weapon. It can bring about great ideas, but it can also offer ideas that are irrealistic and off-base. The danger with intuition is that it is tied severely to the capacity of the observer. It is vague and one must apply critical thinking to it to sort out the accurate from the inaccurate.

As to "self-evident" facts, the history of science if filled with examples of how people and their understanding of the world around them with their "intuition" made up all sorts of explanations for what went around. It took some very bold scientists to challenge these ways of thought. Therein lies the danger of intuitive thought: it is disconnected from reality, and the one who has it "believes" in his idea instead of logically inferring it.

The scope of explanation of theories is of course greater with intuitive models, but the error is much greater. Freud made the biggest intuitive theory ever. Thanks to research, much of what he has said has been disproved. However, imagine all the people who "believed" in what he said without checking if it was "real" first. His method lead to situations that were unfavorable for people: very long psychotherapy sessions, blaming everything on parents, attribution of all problems to sex... And the "intuitive" people believed this and continued to preach and act according to this dangerous doctrine. Therein lies the danger of intuitive thought! I cannot begin to tell you the amount malpractices that occured in psychology because of a lack of critical thinking and empiricism. People begin to treat intuitive models as a religion, "believing" and putting faith in them. Critical thinking and empiricism helps seeing what is right or wrong about intuitions. One cannot afford to build knowledge without using them to sort out the accurate from inaccurate intuitions.

[Phaedrus]

Eidos, you know that Big Five is really nothing more than the four MBTI dichotomies plus neuroticism, don't you? (But I'm not sure if the proponents of Big Five would agree.) Apart from that, the only major difference between MBTI and Big Five is that the latter doesn't put people into "boxes".

[Rick]

Eidos, you've outlined the empirical problems very well. Typologies rarely arise out of empiricism, since discrete "one or the other" situations rarely arise in nature (maybe gender is one, but even there the line can sometimes be hazy). Typologies in the broad sense are thus a philosophical product -- a result of developing "thought categories" that allow us to think about a subject in a structured manner.

The "dangers" inherent in "intuitive thought," as you put it, are actually present in every area of life where we act based on views or convictions. But that's another topic...

What is your view of what should happen in socionics to avoid the ugly fate of Freudian psychoanalysis?

[Creepy-]

Eidos, you know that Big Five is really nothing more than the four MBTI dichotomies plus neuroticism, don't you? (But I'm not sure if the proponents of Big Five would agree.) Apart from that, the only major difference between MBTI and Big Five is that the latter doesn't put people into "boxes".

I disagree. Extraversion, perhaps, but Agreeableness? Openness to Experience? How are they related?

[Phaedrus]

I disagree. Extraversion, perhaps, but Agreeableness? Openness to Experience? How are they related?

Agreeableness = F
Openness to Experience = N
Conscientiousness = J

You could, if you are more interested, take a look at the Theorists Table at http://www.personalityresearch.org/b...tml#dimensions which I accidentally came across a moment ago, while writing this reply.

[Creepy-]

I disagree. Extraversion, perhaps, but Agreeableness? Openness to Experience? How are they related?

Agreeableness = F
Openness to Experience = N
Conscientiousness = J

You could, if you are more interested, take a look at the Theorists Table at http://www.personalityresearch.org/b...tml#dimensions which I accidentally came across a moment ago, while writing this reply.

Wow, well obviously I'm not an F type because I score low on agreeableness :wink:

Also the N/S thing is sketchy at best, and on the page they don't explain the table.

[Rick]

I disagree. Extraversion, perhaps, but Agreeableness? Openness to Experience? How are they related?

Agreeableness = F
Openness to Experience = N
Conscientiousness = J

You could, if you are more interested, take a look at the Theorists Table at http://www.personalityresearch.org/b...tml#dimensions which I accidentally came across a moment ago, while writing this reply.

These categories are tantalizingly similar, but...
All my attempts to relate other categories (for example, those used in comparing cultures) to socionics have ended in failure.
Again, that's what this thread is all about!

[Rick]

Thanks for that Big 5 link!
Actually, this is a very interesting topic.
In testing for the Big 5 traits, you have the same testing issues that you do for other psychological traits (including MBTI and socionics tests), namely:
- is the person responding accurately?
- is self-concept in line with reality?

Maybe those who know more about the Big 5 in use can answer. Are these traits presumed to be constant/determined (I believe they are, otherwise they would be fairly useless)? How do they resolve the issue of people giving different answers depending on their mood and age, despite the fact that these traits are constants?

[Rick]

Got this from that link:

The following are some of the important characteristics of the five factors. First, the factors are dimensions, not types, so people vary continuously on them, with most people falling in between the extremes. Second, the factors are stable over a 45-year period beginning in young adulthood (Soldz & Vaillant, 1999). Third, the factors and their specific facets are heritable (i.e., genetic), at least in part (Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998; Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998). Fourth, the factors probably had adaptive value in a prehistoric environment (Buss, 1996). Fifth, the factors are considered universal, having been recovered in languages as diverse as German and Chinese (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Sixth, knowing one's placement on the factors is useful for insight and improvement through therapy (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

So, the differences I see between the Big 5 and typologies are:
1. the traits allow for a continuum rather than being discrete
2. these particular traits were boiled down from many different traits in order to arrive at a set that would best summarize personality traits studied by psychology, and so that each trait would be correlated with the others as little as possible

[Raver]

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.

Well as for the taxes issue, I personally prefer a low to moderate level for taxes and I was just using that as an example. I guess I meant that higher taxes means more services, but not higher standard of living, so there is the chance that I was hundred percent wrong on that one then.

Though, I didn't really understand what you were saying about my mode of arguing being 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.

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?

I'm not that knowledgable when it comes to that issue. So, sorry maybe that was just a bad example, I think a better example would be this:

Do you think it is better to have long hair or short hair:

Person A thinks short hair
Person B thinks long hair

In this situation, it deals with an issue that has to do with personal taste therefore an argument of this nature will never yield someone being 100% right or 100% wrong. I hope that is a better example.

[Phaedrus]

Do you think it is better to have long hair or short hair:

Person A thinks short hair
Person B thinks long hair

In this situation, it deals with an issue that has to do with personal taste therefore an argument of this nature will never yield someone being 100% right or 100% wrong. I hope that is a better example.

Perhaps it is a better example. But even in this situation one could go on arguing.

First one has to define what is meant by "better". Better in relation to another thing, or just better in itself? For example, if you are discussing if long or short hair is better if you want to weigh as much as possible, I think long hair would win by a small margin. If you are discussing whether long or short hair is better in general, in itself, then if, for example, hedonistic utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory, you should have exactly the lenght of your hair that minimizes suffering and maximizes pleasure (or well-being) in the long run considering all sentient beings in the universe.

And how do you know that you can't be 100 % right or wrong when dealing with personal taste? There are probably fewer people who would argue that esthetic preferences are objective in the same sense as statements are true or false, or actions right or wrong, but some do. I personally believe that, for example, some works of music are objectively better (has more intrinsic value) than other works of music. And there is probably some specific lenght of your hair that is optimal if you want to look as attractive as possible to as many people as possible. Beauty (or attractiveness) is also something that is objective in the sense that there is a pattern in what people find attractive. Proportionality is relevant, just to mention one thing that is important in beautiful things or people.

[FDG]

I'm not that knowledgable when it comes to that issue. So, sorry maybe that was just a bad example, I think a better example would be this:

Do you think it is better to have long hair or short hair:

Person A thinks short hair
Person B thinks long hair

In this situation, it deals with an issue that has to do with personal taste therefore an argument of this nature will never yield someone being 100% right or 100% wrong. I hope that is a better example.

Look at the question. It asks for a subjective value judgement, which, being subjective, is true by definition!

[Raver]

Do you think it is better to have long hair or short hair:

Person A thinks short hair
Person B thinks long hair

In this situation, it deals with an issue that has to do with personal taste therefore an argument of this nature will never yield someone being 100% right or 100% wrong. I hope that is a better example.

Perhaps it is a better example. But even in this situation one could go on arguing.

First one has to define what is meant by "better". Better in relation to another thing, or just better in itself? For example, if you are discussing if long or short hair is better if you want to weigh as much as possible, I think long hair would win by a small margin. If you are discussing whether long or short hair is better in general, in itself, then if, for example, hedonistic utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory, you should have exactly the lenght of your hair that minimizes suffering and maximizes pleasure (or well-being) in the long run considering all sentient beings in the universe.

And how do you know that you can't be 100 % right or wrong when dealing with personal taste? There are probably fewer people who would argue that esthetic preferences are objective in the same sense as statements are true or false, or actions right or wrong, but some do. I personally believe that, for example, some works of music are objectively better (has more intrinsic value) than other works of music. And there is probably some specific lenght of your hair that is optimal if you want to look as attractive as possible to as many people as possible. Beauty (or attractiveness) is also something that is objective in the sense that there is a pattern in what people find attractive. Proportionality is relevant, just to mention one thing that is important in beautiful things or people.

Yeah there are people that believe that you could be 100% right or wrong in this issue of hair. Like some people believe that men should only have short hair and women should only have long hair. I personally believe people should wear their hair at any length they wish and someone could aruge about this. When it comes to beauty, noone is really 100% right or wrong because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[FDG]

Yeah there are people that believe that you could be 100% right or wrong in this issue of hair. Like some people believe that men should only have short hair and women should only have long hair. I personally believe people should wear their hair at any length they wish and someone could aruge about this. When it comes to beauty, noone is really 100% right or wrong because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It's tricky, Y and C. Actually, the truth is that everyone is 100 right, not that everyone is NOT 100 right, simply because subjective value judgement are right by defintion

[Raver]

Yeah there are people that believe that you could be 100% right or wrong in this issue of hair. Like some people believe that men should only have short hair and women should only have long hair. I personally believe people should wear their hair at any length they wish and someone could aruge about this. When it comes to beauty, noone is really 100% right or wrong because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It's tricky, Y and C. Actually, the truth is that everyone is 100 right, not that everyone is NOT 100 right, simply because subjective value judgement are right by defintion

I agree, now if it was an objective value, would it mean that some is 100% right and 100% wrong in the argument or is it mixed?

Look at the question. It asks for a subjective value judgement, which, being subjective, is true by definition!

Yeah, I knew it was subjective, though I typed it up anyways. Are you saying that personal opinion is always correct when dealing with matters that are subjective. That I know and agree with you.

[FDG]

I agree, now if it was an objective value

It's impossible.

[Rocky]

I disagree. Extraversion, perhaps, but Agreeableness? Openness to Experience? How are they related?

Agreeableness = F
Openness to Experience = N
Conscientiousness = J

You could, if you are more interested, take a look at the Theorists Table at http://www.personalityresearch.org/b...tml#dimensions which I accidentally came across a moment ago, while writing this reply.

Wow, well obviously I'm not an F type because I score low on agreeableness :wink:

Also the N/S thing is sketchy at best, and on the page they don't explain the table.

Exactly, they all seem off except the J.

[Phaedrus]

When it comes to beauty, noone is really 100% right or wrong because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

That seems to be your opinion, yes. But it is only an opinion, and it is not an opinion that is shared by everybody. If you want me to agree with you, you have to argue convincingly for it.

[Raver]

I agree, now if it was an objective value

It's impossible.

lol

That seems to be your opinion, yes. But it is only an opinion, and it is not an opinion that is shared by everybody. If you want me to agree with you, you have to argue convincingly for it.

Ah that is true. Well, I've noticed that ten people can look at the same person and say that he/she is ugly, average and beautiful. Have you seen hundred people look at the same person and say that he/she is only one thing?

[Phaedrus]

Have you seen hundred people look at the same person and say that he/she is only one thing?

No, but there are different opinions about almost any topic, even those where you can prove one side to be 100 % correct. I don't consider that a strong argument at all.

[wym123]

I'm not that knowledgable when it comes to that issue. So, sorry maybe that was just a bad example, I think a better example would be this:

Do you think it is better to have long hair or short hair:

Person A thinks short hair
Person B thinks long hair

In this situation, it deals with an issue that has to do with personal taste therefore an argument of this nature will never yield someone being 100% right or 100% wrong. I hope that is a better example.

How do you define "better?"

This is a trick question. You said "better" but you might really mean "perfer," in which case, who am I to say what another perfers.

I can assure you that given an adaquete definition of "better," one person is right and one person is wrong.

[tcaudilllg]

WOW... what justification do you have for Napoleon being an Intuitive... AT ALL? Every inch of his existance is contrasting to that. From his dislike of abstract theory, to his physical brashness, to poor preformance in languges but interest in geography, to his pragmatic attitude, to everything. Nothing I have ever read on Napoleon made me think, "That really sounds like an Intuitive".

Because I'm asserting that he was an intuitive who did not have critical thinking by which to like abstract theory.

A non-intuitive could not have done what he did the way he did it. You're forgetting his abilities to penetrate his opponent's weaknesses on a large scale. A sensor would have been faced with the reality in front of him. He couldn't have done what Napoleon did.

Nevermind. Let's take this worthy debate into its own thread.
(and I've never liked foreign languages, BTW. Never knon an ENTJ who really liked abstract theory either... and they are very pragmatic)

[Creepy-]

A non-intuitive could not have done what he did the way he did it. You're forgetting his abilities to penetrate his opponent's weaknesses on a large scale. A sensor would have been faced with the reality in front of him. He couldn't have done what Napoleon did.

An dominant could have done it. They have a knack for sizing up situations and knowing the best strategy. In this respect the intuitives can't really compete, especially as they need more information than the sensors do to get to the sme conclusions.

[Raver]

A non-intuitive could not have done what he did the way he did it. You're forgetting his abilities to penetrate his opponent's weaknesses on a large scale. A sensor would have been faced with the reality in front of him. He couldn't have done what Napoleon did.

An dominant could have done it. They have a knack for sizing up situations and knowing the best strategy. In this respect the intuitives can't really compete, especially as they need more information than the sensors do to get to the sme conclusions.

What are you talking about? Intuitives swallow information without chewing it, therefore they can easily create a strategy faster than a sensor.

[FDG]

A non-intuitive could not have done what he did the way he did it. You're forgetting his abilities to penetrate his opponent's weaknesses on a large scale. A sensor would have been faced with the reality in front of him. He couldn't have done what Napoleon did.

An dominant could have done it. They have a knack for sizing up situations and knowing the best strategy. In this respect the intuitives can't really compete, especially as they need more information than the sensors do to get to the sme conclusions.

What are you talking about? Intuitives swallow information without chewing it, therefore they can easily create a strategy faster than a sensor.

That's E vs I.

[Raver]

A non-intuitive could not have done what he did the way he did it. You're forgetting his abilities to penetrate his opponent's weaknesses on a large scale. A sensor would have been faced with the reality in front of him. He couldn't have done what Napoleon did.

An dominant could have done it. They have a knack for sizing up situations and knowing the best strategy. In this respect the intuitives can't really compete, especially as they need more information than the sensors do to get to the sme conclusions.

What are you talking about? Intuitives swallow information without chewing it, therefore they can easily create a strategy faster than a sensor.

That's E vs I.

Okay, I think that would be then. Though, I would think that an intuitive will need less information overall to absorb than a sensor, or am I wrong?

[Rocky]

A non-intuitive could not have done what he did the way he did it. You're forgetting his abilities to penetrate his opponent's weaknesses on a large scale. A sensor would have been faced with the reality in front of him. He couldn't have done what Napoleon did.

An dominant could have done it. They have a knack for sizing up situations and knowing the best strategy. In this respect the intuitives can't really compete, especially as they need more information than the sensors do to get to the sme conclusions.

What are you talking about? Intuitives swallow information without chewing it, therefore they can easily create a strategy faster than a sensor.

Not true.

She's getting it from this quote;

It is noteworthy that the first (intuitive types) have a certain sluggish thinking style. They need much more information to figure out what's going on. They create the impression of being absent-minded "dullwits." The latter (sensing types), on the other hand, immediately impress you by how quickly they are able to get their bearings.

~Aushra Augusta

[Raver]

A non-intuitive could not have done what he did the way he did it. You're forgetting his abilities to penetrate his opponent's weaknesses on a large scale. A sensor would have been faced with the reality in front of him. He couldn't have done what Napoleon did.

An dominant could have done it. They have a knack for sizing up situations and knowing the best strategy. In this respect the intuitives can't really compete, especially as they need more information than the sensors do to get to the sme conclusions.

What are you talking about? Intuitives swallow information without chewing it, therefore they can easily create a strategy faster than a sensor.

Not true.

She's getting it from this quote;

It is noteworthy that the first (intuitive types) have a certain sluggish thinking style. They need much more information to figure out what's going on. They create the impression of being absent-minded "dullwits." The latter (sensing types), on the other hand, immediately impress you by how quickly they are able to get their bearings.

~Aushra Augusta

Oh, I get it now. The intutives need to connect the dots to understand something, but the sensors could understand it without that process.

[Olga]

I don't know why but I still think Napoleon was ESFP. He could be ESTP. ESTP is about strategy and ESFP is about tactics. I don't know how much Napoleon was thinking when he went to Russia. We had a marshall Kutusov to fight Napoleon. Kutusov was most probably ESTP and he has wone because he had to think carefuly - the russian army was much smaller in comparance to Napoleon's army. On the other hand, according to my theory, the type is more likely to develop Superego block at mature age (or earlier - age is relative) unless the person will not develop some sort of psychological pathology. It seems to me that due to certain changes in personality/attitude with age it would be difficult to fit the person into the frame while analysing all details. People who wrote about Napoleon added their perceptions and their interpretations of him. I think napoleon has been chose as a symbolic figure/representer of the type who was driven to control the world while there was not any economical or practical need or sense in doing that. I don't think ESTP would be so reckless or inpractical to get to the war for the sake of the war jus to feel the excitement. The creative function of ESTp is - thinking and this is not just absract logic thought it is organised thought - different from excitement. ESTP creates a closed system like his own backjard and then protects it and cares and protects those who happened to be in his system/backjard. Do we have sufficient evidence that Napoleon cared about his own people/army. AS far as I know (I did not read anything as such about Napoleon :wink:-just historical well known facts from his life)
he didn't care even much about himself when he was in the war, he was not frightened of being killed. And this irrational fear free power was a key ingredient - he believed in his power and in his victory and so others did and followed. Of course, nowdays we can imagine him to be any type if we want to. What was his appearance like btw, was it very different from the way ESFP look? Can anybody put the picture on the site? Do we know ohter ESFP and ESTP or ISTP marshalls to compare? Logical types are different from ethical types, we should be able to draw the line. What type was ******, did the forum came to any consensus about his type?

[Rocky]

@Olga: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3369 --> Napoleon

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=115 --> ******

(Pictures of Napoleon)

[tcaudilllg]

Aside from N, ****** was undifferentiated. A very primal individual.

[Creepy-]

What are you talking about? Intuitives swallow information without chewing it, therefore they can easily create a strategy faster than a sensor.

Not true.

She's getting it from this quote;

It is noteworthy that the first (intuitive types) have a certain sluggish thinking style. They need much more information to figure out what's going on. They create the impression of being absent-minded "dullwits." The latter (sensing types), on the other hand, immediately impress you by how quickly they are able to get their bearings.

~Aushra Augusta

Thanks Rocky (Isn't it great to have someone who reads the same books/articles as you?)

Oh, I get it now. The intutives need to connect the dots to understand something, but the sensors could understand it without that process.

Pretty much. Plus is a certainty (or as close as one can get), is possibility. The type might be right but if they missed a bit of information they could be way off.

[CuriousSoul]

The creative function of ESTp is - thinking and this is not just absract logic thought it is organised thought - different from excitement. ESTP creates a closed system like his own backjard and then protects it and cares and protects those who happened to be in his system/backjard. Do we have sufficient evidence that Napoleon cared about his own people/army.

Sound interesting, but if ESTP creates a closed system what does ESFP create? ESFPs can be very caring people too...

What type was ******, did the forum came to any consensus about his type?

I wrote a lengthy article on ******'s type arguing that ****** was a Socionics ENTP. At the time I thought I was myself an INFP. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, and currently I feel rather embarassed by the whole article, but since Herr ****** was mentioned, I might as well put it straight: The article is generally suitable only as a demonstration on how one can use fancy words and shoddy logic to prove just about anything.

The problem with typing in socionics is that none of the methods, with the possibly (partial?) exception of visual identification, are capable of excluding any types. It is easy to come up with arguments in favor of any type, and with some effort to even persuade others, but even nearly unanimous agreement is still no guarantee of correctness of typing.

I do no think "the Forum" has reached any consensus on ******'s type. Sergei Ganin appears to be of the opinion that ****** cannot have been ENFJ. I think he is on the right track. If I have to offer a guess on ******'s type I would currently go for INFJ, but frankly that rather terrifies me and therefore I'd rather not go down that path while there is still hope I could be wrong.

[FDG]

Maybe I am crazy, but I recall that your argument was in favour of ENTp, not INFp.

[CuriousSoul]

@FDG
Yes, of course it was.
I guess I should edit my original post to make this clear to others too.

[FDG]

@FDG
Yes, of course it was.
I guess I should edit my original post to make this clear to others too.

To me, that kind of article was not so bad, actually, not at all.