Why is that frustrating?Originally Posted by Jonathan
Why is that frustrating?
Well, maybe frustrating's not quite the right word. It simply points to what may be perceived as a problem. A typical point of view is "Well, those MBTI folks don't really think in terms of functions, they just go by dichotomies and type descriptions. If they were really aware of the functions, then surely they would come to conclusions more in line with Socionics." But clearly this isn't always the case. I'm not saying the descrepancies can't be explained, though.
MBTT is a functional theory, and so is Socionics. Keirsey's, Spranger's, Groos's, and James's typologies are not based on functions. Keirsey describes the same 16 types as those in MBTT and Socionics, though, and all three (MBTT, Socionics, and Keirsey) define the 16 types in the four dimensions.
And all three also test people's types by using a testing method where they ask questions that are based on the four dimensions that define the types. The only reason people have got the incorrect idea that MBTT is not a functional theory and that it is all about the four dimensions is because the testing method (which of course does not define your type in any way) is so much in focus due to the industry that has been built around it.
Most psychologists agree that all the relevant differences in people's personalities can be reduced to the Big Five traits, and they are right about that of course. We all agree on that, and we must agree on that if we believe that Socionics is a correct theory.
All these theories describe the same reality, the same empirical phenomena, only using different names and explanations for what we all can observe. The Big Five is the most commonly accepted model, but its five basic traits are nothing but the four dimensions in Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey with one dimension added -- neuroticism. Conscientiousness is the same phenomenon as the J/P dichotomy, which is the same as the difference between rational and irrational types in Socionics and Jung.
These fundamental human traits are not tied to any specific theory, because they can all be observed by everyone without any previous theoretical knowledge, and they also have been observed and described long, long before Jung came up with his idea that there are eight basic psychological types. Jung was not the first typologist, and Socionics is certainly not unique when it comes to how to understand the four dimensions.
If Socionics would not describe the four dimensions of the 16 types the same way that they are correctly described by others who have been observing the same reality, Socionics would be a an incorrect theory on the types. But that does not seem to be the case. Socionics describes the 16 types in roughly the same way as everyone else -- except for the fact that some misguided people on this forum have not realized it and instead invented their own private version of Socionics that contradicts what "official" Socionics says about the types.
The most fundamental and generally valid definition of any type in any model -- including Socionics -- is in relation to the four (or five) basic dimensions (scales, dichotomies). If anyone, at any time or any place, would ever find that his or her presumed type in Socionics contradicts his or her presumed typed as defined by the four dichotomies, then we know for certain that he or she has been mistyped. Your type in Socionics is necessarily defined by the four dimensions.
We do? Well, I don't! My personal understanding is that conscientious is a trait which is semi-fixed in personality, but that for most people (people with normal psychology, which is the realm to which Big 5 is applied) it is largely learned behavior, not something that results exclusively out of inborn traits: according to many psychologists, most infants are impulsive and low on conscientiousness, and it a a parent's job to teach conscientiousness. The result is that most people are average in conscientiousness, as they are average on the other 4 dimensions as well.
Socionics, as a theory, holds that each person's type is a result of inborn preferences, not of learned behavior. The effect is that each (healthy) person has a specific type, i.e. is not cross-typed. If you claim that Socionics is basically the same as Big 5, then the theory behind Socionics is invalid, and we can simply discard it. Or top put it differently: If Rationality/Irrationality is the same as Conscientiousness, then Socionics, as a theory, is invalid.
The question is: can a rational person be low on conscientiousness and an irrational person be high on conscientiousness? I think insights of Cognitive-Behavioral Psychology on conscientiousness, impulsiveness and procrastination show us the question can be answered with 'yes'. Low and high conscientiousness (in the pathological sense) can be unlearned (with quite some effort), but I doubt it changes cognitive style.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Well, that means that you are uneducated and still have something to learn about the human psyche.
That is totally wrong of course. All of these traits can be observed from infancy, and all of them are basically inborn. If "many psychologists" have the views you are attributing to them here, they too must be educated since they probably are basing their views on totally false premises. They most likely belong to one of the "dynamic" schools of psychology -- those schools that deny the findings of the natural sciences. We know that our basic personality traits, as they are captured and described by the Big Five, are mostly inborn. That fact is not open for discussion; those who deny it should study some neurobiology.
What do you mean by "rational person" here? I am a very rational person in my thinking but not as much in my behaviour. And I am of course an irrational type, since I am an ILI. A person with a rational (j) type in Socionics can not be low on conscientiousness, that's impossible. Either the test result is incorrect or the person is mistyped in that case.
Argumentation by intimidation. End of discussion with you as far as I'm concerned.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I don't agree. The four "dimensions" are not necessarily the only way to describe the empirical phenomena that is internally consistent. A description of physical dimensions using feet instead of meters isn't incorrect, it's just confusing; correct and consistent translation is needed between the two.
It seems at least as probable to me that a large fraction of those who take such questionnaires as the MBTI, respond based upon their typical contribution to society rather than their preferred set of surroundings, given a choice between the two.
LII expects to be given a fairly consistent schedule and such, but isn't too great at producing one in the "real world". ILI expects to encounter exciting changes in life, but isn't too great at producing them. A significant part of the human need for a dual presence is rooted in this. The extrovert attracts and aggregates such conditions as their dual unconsciously expects for their surroundings.
However the introvert rational (e.g.) consciously only expects their own self to have an inner orderliness, i.e. for their ideas to make sense or their relationships to be in accordance to the ideal archetype. They are conscious of their environment only insofar as they can have an effect at changing the perceptions of others or see things from the perspective of others. Likewise the introvert irrational is only conscious of the outward environment insofar as they can impose order by challenging the logic or ethics of others, or by figuring out who is right and who is wrong about things.
Thus, I'm inclined to believe that the way they answer on a test is most likely to be affected by what they can consciously "do something" about. The rational or irrational impulse is certainly there in a given type, but it is turned inwards and most of the time doesn't directly reflect action. In practice this depends on whether and to what degree you are extremely focused on yourself, versus the "real world" at the time of testing. This accounts for many like myself who receive 50-50 results, as well as the many cases where self-described members of a given "type community" online experience high levels of quasi-identical tension with each other.
Reply With Quote
