SLOAN type and Socionics

[Aleksei]

And it wasn't her model at all. It was her (mis)representation of Jung's model. Socionics fixed her mistake and stayed true to Jung enough to discover intertype relations, the obvious next step from Jung's work.

Jung never had the intention of establishing intertype relations. Myers didn't either. Thus, Myers and Jung did not establish a model that had any explanatory power over intertype relations. So no that wasn't an obvious next step. However, it was certainly a positive step to take, one that refined a model into something practically usable.

[Crispy]

Jung laid the groundwork for discovery of intertype relations even if he didn't know it at the time. Myers would have found the relations if she set the functions correctly. It was the obvious next step to Aushra because she saw the true potential of Jung's work as a framework of relations between information elements. Anyone who has typed themselves and a few people around them correctly knows how accurate inter-type relations play out in the real world. That alone is enough to make MBTI useless in comparison. But MBTI doesn't have to be useless if it's types have equivalences in socionics; then the intertype relations can be adapted to MBTI types. But until we find out if option's #1 or #2 are the Truth, we have to assume #3 that MBTI is obsolete.

[Aleksei]

Myers would have found the relations if she set the functions correctly.

She probably wouldn't have, because Jung did not design the functions to be compatible with intertype relations. As a result they were not fucking compatible with intertype relations. Augusta actually had to modify the functions in order to fit her sociological model.

And as I've said before, "she got the order wrong" is not a valid argument because she was using the same exact sixteen function types Socionics uses, just with different codes. So if Socionics used the same letter codes, all they had to do to make it fit was to 1) switch out J/P in introvert relations (INTP becomes ENFJ's dual rather than INTJ, and so on), and 2) switch out the IP and IJ temperaments.

[Crispy]

The functions from Jung's Psychological Types are 100% compatible with intertype relations. They are the same functions Socionics uses today. Why would you think Aushra modified any of the functions? Did you read Jung's Psychological Types?

They only use different codes if J/P switch is correct for introverts, which it's not.

(INTP becomes ENFJ's dual rather than INTJ, and so on), and 2)

You know that neither INTj nor INTp are Dual's with ENFj right? Do you really not know which type is your own dual?

[Aleksei]

Typo, I meant ESFJ.

That happens sometimes, when I write while pissed off.

And yes, I read Psychological Types. That's how I know Augusta modified the functions.

[Crispy]

Does her modifications affect today's current socionic's descriptions or the way we type? If Jung's original functions match perfectly with intertype relations, I guess her descriptions wouldn't matter. Unless her modified ideas are widespread throughout the literature... Is that the case?

[Aleksei]

If I'm not mistaken Socionics literature is mostly based on Augusta's descriptions, so the changes she made got ported over. Jung's functions I would say probably don't work altogether too well with intertype relations (as they were not designed around how their users would react to users of other functions), which is why the changes were made. I would say Augusta and Gulenko actually improved the functions over Jung's original work.

[KeroZen]

Fellows please calm the heat down.

I'm gathering more info but I'm intuiting on something!

Meanwhile it's been proved that functions and dichotomies are different ways of expressing/viewing/conceptualizing it all but why are you even discussing that?

Postulate: Functions AND first 3 dichotomies exist and are the same in both systems. Period.

Proof: Dichotomies per their intrinsic definition can't be different and have been proved already. Whether you call it feeling or ethics it's F (I feel bad due to ethics/love/humans) vs T (yes/no/cold-logic/inhuman)

And whether S focuses on sensing more in MBTI and perhaps more on power/spatial/representation in socionics it's also the same (because no sense of space or power if no senses to see in 3D) it's always S vs N (thankfully they don't differ too much on N)

E vs I is always defined the same, as per Jung (it's the most widely understood)

Also it's not possible to argue that one definition of, say S, is not as S as the other, because by definition dichotomies represent abstract total/absolute opposites. Whether one system describes it with some words and the second with other words and seems less absolute to you than the other is absolutely irrelevant because they are "idealistic and abstract concepts" and thus can't be defined by mere words.

[KeroZen]

Postulate: the j/p and J/P dichotomies are not the same

Proof: I'm going to quote the socioniko.net front page again but I feel a bit silly because we need no proof, we know socionics j/p is fine but MBTI has the blotch, and because we're trying to define the blotch, it must exist...

MBTI:

In addition to Jungian type dimensions a new dimension called J/P (judging/perceiving) has been introduced. (alright they introduced something blotched we agree)

Socionics:

J/P is considered to fully coincide with Jungian dimension of Rationality/Irrationality (hm yeah! can you feel the fresh air? smells good being here)

[KeroZen]

Also note the false assumption that many people make when they think socionics has a "judging vs perceiving" scale ...whereas it's defined very differently on official socionics sites, as seen in this little but concise quote (from one of said official sites).

[KeroZen]

In fact why are we even using the j/p letters if socioniko.net says it's r vs i?



Stealing MBTI 4 letters code was not enough, we had to use their most blotched arbitrary and controverted scale letters as well!

But wait, if I can prove the nature of the conversion method M then we shall not discard the J/P scale as it's in a way correlated to rational/irrational then, and even if blotched it's not useless...

[Crispy]

Unless you can prove MBTI Judging/Perceiving = Socionics Dynamic/Static, you are covering old ground.

[KeroZen]

Ok I'm investigating Keirsey's issue at the moment and I would like you to read (or re-read) this page because there are very interesting details: Keirsey Temperament Website

To start, when reading this I see someone desperately trying to get credit for his work, first by almost implying Myers/Briggs stole his work, then by saying they were naive and did an oversimplification of Jung's work, and then even daring to say that Jung didn't do much in the end (it was in the air etc..+ they saved Jung from oblivion)...to end up justifying the fact that his system is all different in the end! .

I wouldn't be so reticent about this guy if he hadn't put copyrights on all his stereotypes nicknames and wasn't desperately trying to sell his theories, pretending it's different and hence original whereas the only thing he did was to screw with S types.

Explanation of what I sense and I what I'm trying to prove:

His system from a close observation is not symmetrical like ours, where we would have grouped by:

NT, NF, SF, ST

He arbitrarily chose to focus on the S/N dichotomy and tried to group types this way instead:

NF, NT, SP, SJ

Already we can see that there is something spiffy in his approach and particular/specific focus/emphasizing for S types.

Then, further in this article one can read:

"Second cut of the Ss (Myers or Jung never thought of using different criteria for different parts of the tree, because they didn't view it as a tree)"

...which doesn't tell us much except confirming that in his view this part of the "tree" (?) should use different criteria. But then we can read some bits about his definition of the local J/P scale he uses. Note the local word because for NF and NT types he makes the "second cut" on N vs T and then the a cut on E vs I, whereas for S types the "second cut" is on J/P (=blotch²) but this is pretty much bullshit because how can one order the dichotomies? It's not like you can test one then the other...unless he skewed them in some way!

"If one is primarily viewing the world in terms of "percepts" (nature supplied or environment supplied) then the issue of what to do with those percepts based on experience is crucial. Hence you can either take it in based on experience and experienced judgment or just take it in with no judgment and just react to it based on experience or what looks good at the time."

Insightful...

So this guy chose to use the dichotomies in what he thinks was a creative enough way to dare marketing it as essentially different, and also chose to disregard the functions themselves (afaik) preferring another approach, which could be related more to Big5 or the like (initial thread topic) but leading to exact same type count and awful similitudes...

Why am I focusing on Kiersey?

1) Because in my nicknames data as pointed by Crispy, the only two columns that always fail for ISxx types come from keirsey.com copyrighted nicknames (column #3) and mypersonality.info (column #4) the second being as you can see an aggregator of all other sites including Keirsey so they had to settle on a nickname or the other...and were surely not aware of blotch²
2) Because most self-taught people when learning MBTI by themselves using the internet (and not paying outrageous sums to participate to an official seminary or paid formation to have the right to use the tool) will undoubtedly fall right into the humanmetrics.com page to pass the easiest to find online MBTI test. They will get a summary result page (very cryptic) with links to...what? You guess it right, Mr Keirsey's site -> blotch2

So depending on your entry point to MBTI (if you are tested or self-tested) and your type (all NT and NF types are ok as we've seen) if you are an ISxx type, either you experience the blotch or you expericence the blotch²!

Meaning an equal number of ISFx coming to socionics and saying they either match (#1) or must j/p switch (#2)

My naive guess is just that:

blotch² = no j/p switch for ISxx when reading Keirsey.

[KeroZen]

When applying both blotch and blotch² and discarding column 4:



1) INFj = INFP = Humanist, Empath, Healer, Dreamer, Idealist, Harmonizer, Clarifier, Idealistic Philosopher, Humanist
2) INFp = INFJ = Lyricist, Romantic, Counselor, Diplomat, Empath, Confidant, Protectors, Mystic, Foreseer, Developer, Writer, Lyrist
3) ISTp = ISTJ = Craftsman, Artisan, Crafter, Examiner, Duty Fulfillers, Reliant, Planner, Administrator, Craftsman
4) ISTj = ISTP = Inspector, Pragmatist, Inspector, Craftsman, Mechanics, Realist, Analyzer, Operator, Inspector
5) ISFp = ISFJ = Mediator, Peacemaker,Composer, Defender, Nurturers, Supporter, Caretaker
6) ISFj = ISFP = Guardian, Conservator, Protector, Artist, Aesthete, Producer, Gentle Artist
7) INTj = INTP = Analyst, Mastermind, Architect, Engineer, Thinkers, Wizard, Designer, Theorizer, Scholar
8) INTp = INTJ = Critic, Observer, Mastermind, Strategist, Scientists, Free-Thinker, Conceptualizer, Director, Expert, Critic

No I'm not falsifying evidence lol or do I'am?

[KeroZen]

Also evidence of the blotch² is clear when you consider that the Keirsey's nicknames clashed MORE with other MBTI nicknames that socionics ones (because there are more MBTI data than socionics in this chart, we need to complete that I think at some point, because for now it only has a very strong subjective/intuitive power as those are all carefully chosen words, but we need more data)

In fact I could remove all socionics nicknames from this study and leave only the MBTI ones, and you would see that the only problematic ones would still be Keirsey's ones.

When I collected the nicknames data I wasn't aware there could be a difference between MBTI and Keirsey's because they are all always mixed, and Kiersey has more web visibility than the closed MBTI sites...

[Aiss]

Okay, I'm going to reiterate it yet again. MBTI dichotomies:

I/E - this actually contrasts, both in tests and descriptions, based on social/outgoing qualities. It goes against Jung's ideas about dominant extroverted functions, as well as against what extroversion is in socionics. In effect, it's probably closest to socionics IT vs EF. People who are in the middle on this one are probably ET or IF.

N/S - this is tested for and described as novelty vs tradition, putting a lot of weight on open-mindedness, innovation or mistrust of it, etc. Seems to mix in type-unrelated qualities with N/S and rationality. The closest socionics equivalent would be Np vs Sj, but it doesn't cover all of it, really. Some things just aren't type related.

T/F - this seems similar to socionics, except skewed towards logical or ethical *abilities* rather than preferences. Many intelligent Feelers I know, especially Introverts, test as T types in MBTI.

P/J - there are two qualities commonly associated with this one. First, official one is as good as equivalent to rationality, or rather, its superficial qualities. Second is the doer/thinker contrast, taking action, decisive vs hesitating. In effect, in common use, it contrasts Ip with Ej, with falling on the middle on this scale possibly poiting to a static type (Ep or Ij).

I happen to agree MBTI-like notation sucks, and I used to insist on three-letter codes, but then more newbies come and complain about all they have to learn and how it makes it easier to just go along with all the MBTI stereotypes they have. IMO it's only another reason it would be better to use a separate, typically socionics notation, whether original three-letter or Gulenko's two-letter codes, to make it clear it's a different system.

[Crispy]

Kiersey points towards direct translation. If you want to remain on the search for evidence towards J/P, you have to temporarily condemn everything Kiersey has ever written (not call it an exception), since it doesn't match with what you seek. Creating a second easy fix removes the significance of simplicity that the first one would bring.

[717495]

Okay, I'm going to reiterate it yet again. MBTI dichotomies:

I/E - this actually contrasts, both in tests and descriptions, based on social/outgoing qualities. It goes against Jung's ideas about dominant extroverted functions, as well as against what extroversion is in socionics. In effect, it's probably closest to socionics IT vs EF. People who are in the middle on this one are probably ET or IF.

Jung said Fi is often the most introverted type, I agree with him in Socionics. It's like Fi then Ti (or even serious types then merry). E/I is the closest dichotomy to Socionics types E/I. Followed by F/T. J/P is totally redefined, and imo N/S needs to be redefined. J/P is the worst though, I don't even think there's a slight correlation. The correlation I see is for subtypes, and even that isn't so big.

So an example would be:

Socionics type INFp = Any MBTI type, but most likely INFx. Higher chance you're Fe-INFp if you're MBTI J, but not at all guaranteed.

Also, some types are more naturally introverted I types, like Fi subtype ExFps. You could expect an INFJ to easily be an Fi-ENFp as much as an Fe-INFp.

-----
Most important lesson though: try not to rely that much on MBTI if your main goal is learning Socionics. Simple as that, 2 different typologies. One's based on separate dichotomies, with less relational connection. Socionics is based on quadra, with lots of relational connection. It's noted, and has been described here, that the relational connection in MBTI has little to nothing to do with quadra, but with its dichotomies. Ns getting along the best with one another, INTPs and INTJs having often a lot alike and a good relationship, etc. It extends to say an MBTI INTP and MBTI ESFP would not be expected to get along well, most of the time. I hope this teaches a lesson to you that, it will be beneficial for you to not only find a dual, but find one similar on an MBTI scale to you, especially N for N, S for S. If you're INTP/INTj, it is very possible for you to find an ESFj dual who is an N in MBTI. I personally know two INFJ ESFjs, one who is dualized to an INTP INTj, and INFJs commonly get along well with INTPs. This isn't just extra to think about though, because it's typically and obviously more natural to see Ns getting along the best with other Ns, and Ss other Ss, on a strict dichotomal basis only seen in MBTI. There will always be more Ss in MBTI, but I actually know more Ns on a personal level because I'm an N, or "open" I type in Big5/SLOAN, simply due to the fact that we can freely share that wonderful N mindset with one another that Ss don't embrace.

[ashlesha]

doot doot doot

Global 5: sloan RLOEI; sloan+ |R|lOxi; primary Reserved; R(78%)L(60%)O(70%)E(52%)I(54%)

doot doot doot

[KeroZen]

Kiersey points towards direct translation. If you want to remain on the search for evidence towards J/P, you have to temporarily condemn everything Kiersey has ever written (not call it an exception), since it doesn't match with what you seek. Creating a second easy fix removes the significance of simplicity that the first one would bring.

I like you because contrary to the others here who are very categorical in their current belief (#3 - doubt because lack of evidence or #3b - doubt because of evidence but not taking any action to fix the never ending energy leak "lost in translation") you don't dismiss my idea (nor yours) and are also critical but in a more rational and scientific approach I value a lot.

I said it would be easy if M was as trivial as I see it. Maybe it will prove to be a very complicated method including corrections to take all the fine differences into account (telescope position and angle) but once we get the formula(s) down, I could code some JavaScript online conversion form in a flash! And common mortals never would have to cope with the gory details.

Gory details as I see them: conversion factors to take into account bias in dichotomies and/or function definitions (the only points put on the table by the opposition at this time = telescope position and angle)

I already emphasized about 3 times that MBTI sees EGO+SUPERID and Socionics sees EGO+SUPEREGO, because of differences in test methodology, purpose of the theory, areas of application and/or interest.

--------------------------------

As for the Keirsey's case:

1) ok let's call it a total exception atm, let's even consider it's not MBTI (resolves our nicknames study at once in the process, meaning we got matching nicknames after the blotch, and you all seem to discard this whereas both systems talk for instance about a Ti Se person called "Inspector" in one and a Ti Se person called "Inspector" in the second!!!)

(although if I make an online form, it's easy to add a combo-box for "what test tool/method did you use to get you result" -> MBTI|Keirsey|Socionics and factor blotch² into that, but it's a detail...)

2) you said we must disregard everything he said at once then, but you cited a spot-on duality example he happened to have sniffed. I don't recall exactly the one you gave but I do recall it was between one of the ES types and one of the NF types. This example did support the j/p switch and indeed it works, because remember that NT and NF types are compatible in Keirsey (he just screwed the ISxx)

[Aleksei]

An base Egocentric?

What has the world come to...

[ashlesha]

An base Egocentric?

What has the world come to...

it could be that i need to stop trying to take personality tests so early in the morning. i got e5 on an enneagram test not long ago the same way.

or maybe i'm LII

[KeroZen]

To Aiss and polikujm:

As always, I've read your points, and even if I don't answer for now I do take them into account (thanks polikujm for joining here by the way!)

I'm aware my quest could be a possible failure, don't worry for that I'm not fanatical nor obsessed, and my motives are noble and practical (notion of closure here) I'm not theorizing for the sake of it, I want to either prove they are incompatible, and I'm glad in this case Aiss supports my view on having to drop 4 letters nomenclature....

...or either prove they are compatible in some tangible way, allowing to re-conciliate and pacify the two communities, because you don't seem to realize that it would more than double our forces, as there are more MBTI padawans than there are western-socionics disciples!

But in both cases my motive is not a supposedly egocentric need to prove things at all, I want to stop the confusion for the sake of us all.

[KeroZen]

More about differences MBTI vs Keirsey:

Keirsey Temperament and Myers Briggs personality type

With that particular sentence again hinting towards differences with the ISTP type at least:

"In fact, Isabel Briggs-Myers description is in some ways opposed to Keirsey's: whereas he describes them as action-driven, she states that they are "great believers in economy of effort".

The article also seems to point that Keirsey himself admits he had to modify Jung to fit the temperaments but it's too vague to be of any use. If he skewed things, we need to know how and to what amount.

[KeroZen]

I kept reading descriptions of all NT and NF types in both systems, compared to my understanding of the stereotypes themselves (their essence, what being that type means), also compared to my known friends of these types, who also all agree on the j/p switch, and I can't see any problem to always apply it for these 4 types (INxx)

For the 4 other S introverts it's blurred, but also because I know very few people of these types in real life, and I'm under the impression that neither did all the theorists...

On top of that S types show some interest to these theories like any one curious enough would, but they are more likely to move on quickly back to real life, whereas all N types keep thinking and thinking...

Crispy: I see you as an LII and you seem confident about your type, did you re-read the INTP description on typelogic.com recently? It should be obvious they are describing an LII and not an ILI.

[KeroZen]

Aiss:

Same for you, if you are confident you are ILI, do you identify to INTP on typelogic.com? or more to INTJ?

[KeroZen]

Just had a discussion with a friend who says he tests INTj and INTJ...but he didn't try to analyse deeply and just was fine with both the INTJ description on typelogic and the INTj description on socionics, but more with Balzac than Robespierre on psychotypes.com.... in fact typical case of j/p indetermination due to too superficial testing.

But he can't be Ni Te (mbti) and Ti Ne (socionics) at the same time.

The real problem is that people need the stereotypes descriptions to self assert the results when they are alone, and they rely on small details in short descriptions that are rarely more than one page long...

[Aiss]

I already emphasized about 3 times that MBTI sees EGO+SUPERID and Socionics sees EGO+SUPEREGO, because of differences in test methodology, purpose of the theory, areas of application and/or interest.

I already pointed out many times that socionics DOES NOT emphasize mental ring beyond obvious focus on ego block, just as MBTI is focused on two main functions and Jung was on the dominant one.

If you're going to force-fit socionics into four function model, I don't see sense in discussing it any further. You're cutting it to put it in your MBTI-based box, and it's not going to fit.

Aiss:

Same for you, if you are confident you are ILI, do you identify to INTP on typelogic.com? or more to INTJ?

I don't identify much with either of these descriptions over the other, and I used to think them bad when I self-typed as INTP. I also disagree with you that INTP one is clearly of an LII; some passages point to ILI over LII, many are neutral. But of course, if you reject the differences in use between dominant and demonstrative by dismissing the latter... *shrug*

Admittedly, I don't relate - and never did much, except for weak Fe perhaps - to functional breakdown of TiNeSiFe there. But there's also a lot in INTJ profile that made me think I couldn't be one. Especially confidence and certainty vs doubtful attitude seem reverse. Speaking of confidence, I'm not confident of it, but it makes sense. Sometimes others seem more convinced of my type than I am.

What's interesting is that after I talked to one of my friends about MBTI, he brought it up and showed me some parts of INTJ description from this site that he thought matched me specifically. Seemed surprised when I told him he confused the last letter.

[Crispy]

Ïñèõîëîãèÿ è ñîöèîíèêà :: Ïðîñìîòð òåìû - INTj

That applies only to fields and situations where INTjs are confident of their own competence, and they usually are very aware of which areas they are competent in, and which they aren’t.

INTJ Profile

INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know.

[KeroZen]

Yes but confidence in knowledge is a trait common in both types (they have very strong T after-all) and relying on single sentences like that doesn't work because ILI and LII both master Ti AND Te. There will always be a counter example and I could dig one too right now but it's pointless.

In fact and to be honest, by reading descriptions *only* of INFp and INFj I'm not able to assert my type, it's IMPOSSIBLE. Because the more descriptions I read the more I find specific sentences in one or the other that ring a bell so deeply that I think "hm this describes me very precisely"... unfortunately one time it will be INFp, the other INFj...etc.

Both types are "quasi-identical" same for yours (INTx).

It seems clear that the 4th dichotomy is the hardest to determine for INxx types like us, and we're forced to analyze it down to the functional level for it to make any sense.

I didn't give up work on this, but I also got real-life work to do. All your remarks and gathered criticisms are in a text file waiting to be processed.

I'm going to code a conversion form, including some "sorting" questions, more on that later...

[Aiss]

Both types are "quasi-identical" same for yours (INTx).

It seems clear that the 4th dichotomy is the hardest to determine for INxx types like us, and we're forced to analyze it down to the functional level for it to make any sense.

Except it isn't. I'm clearly P. I'm clearly irrational, and introverted. It's clearly one of the easiest to determine, for me.

I've already explained in this discussion - maybe in the other thread, not sure - that P/J as it's commonly understood (observer vs doer split on top of rationality) contrasts Ip with Ej temperament. My speculation is that borderline preference for this one suggest a static type (Ep or Ij temperament). Some say it's affected by subtypes, and they may be right, in which case it would suggest a rational subtype for irrationals, and irrational subtype for rationals. But it isn't everyone's problem to determine it.

Quasi-identicals happen to have functions of identical strength, except with reversed consciousness.

[Creepy-]

...or either prove they are compatible in some tangible way, allowing to re-conciliate and pacify the two communities, because you don't seem to realize that it would more than double our forces, as there are more MBTI padawans than there are western-socionics disciples!

Windmills. Even if you're technically correct, I'm convinced that it won't happen and I'm also convinced that you'll agree in 2-3 years from now, it's just a fact based on my experience, without trying to come off as the old wise man. Besides, my late experience (in software choices, at least) tells me that quality is rather inversely proportional with popularity .

PP

[The Exception]

Unagreeable: ENTp INTj ESTp ISTj ENTj INTp ESTj ISTp
Results: All T types

Does this mean I can't be INTj? Because I identify with agreeable more than disagreeable.

I'm RcoaI. I always get strong R and I, more slight to moderate on the middle 3.

According to the description of the facets of agreeableness, I don't think there is much that necessarily contracts being a socionics T.

The Big 5 Aspects of Personality


Agreeableness Facets

Trust. A person with high trust assumes that most people are fair, honest, and have good intentions. Persons low in trust may see others as selfish, devious, and potentially dangerous.

I score high on this. I generally trust others and give others the benefit of the doubt at first. The exception is when they do something to betray that trust.



Morality. High scorers on this scale see no need for pretence or manipulation when dealing with others and are therefore candid, frank, and sincere. Low scorers believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. People find it relatively easy to relate to the straightforward high-scorers on this scale. They generally find it more difficult to relate to the low-scorers on this scale. It should be made clear that low scorers are not unprincipled or immoral; they are simply more guarded and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth.

Again high on this. I prefer to be straightforward with others and I don't think its right to take advantage of others for personal gain. I have a strong conscience and a sense of what's ethically appropriate, which I think is my role in action. I am somewhat guarded though because there is certain information that potentially could be used against me if I'm not careful.


Altruism. Altruistic people find helping other people genuinely rewarding. Consequently, they are generally willing to assist those who are in need. Altruistic people find that doing things for others is a form of self-fulfilment rather than self-sacrifice. Low scorers on this scale do not particularly like helping those in need. Requests for help feel like an imposition rather than an opportunity for self-fulfilment.

I typically score in the low-average range. It's not that I don't like helping others, it's just that I want to help them on my own terms and not feel like I'm being imposed upon. I often find requests for help an imposition on my own time and energy.


Cooperation. Individuals who score high on this scale dislike confrontations. They are perfectly willing to compromise or to deny their own needs in order to get along with others. Those who score low on this scale are more likely to intimidate others to get their way.

I score very high on this. I don't like conflicts or fighting with others and avoid it if possible. I suspect I'm considerably higher on this dimension than most T's. I also have a strong enneagram type 9 component which contributes as well as being an H subtype. And the dislike for fighting can be explained by PoLR. I'm not going to totally deny my own needs but if I'm truly honest, I probably do give in too much.


Modesty. High scorers on this scale do not like to claim that they are better than other people. In some cases this attitude may derive from low self-confidence or self-esteem. Nonetheless, some people with high self-esteem find immodesty unseemly. Those who are willing to describe themselves as superior tend to be seen as disagreeably arrogant by other people.

I score high on this. I don't see myself as being better than anyone else or worse for that matter. I prefer to see myself as an equal.


Sympathy. People who score high on this scale are tender-hearted and compassionate. They feel the pain of others vicariously and are easily moved to pity. Low scorers are not affected strongly by human suffering. They pride themselves on making objective judgments based on reason. They are more concerned with truth and impartial justice than with mercy.

I score average. I feel bad for the homeless and people who have undergone alot of strife in their lives. I don't necessarily feel the pain vicariously. Just because you're sad doesn't necessarily mean I'll be said for example but I do undestand what you're going through and care about you and hope you are okay. I do pride myself on objectivity and reason. I value justice and mercy equally.

[Crispy]

And the dislike for fighting can be explained by PoLR.

PoLR only accounts for disliking fighting in a physical sense, not conflicts in general. it means "Physically Infantile", not "Conflict-Avoidant". The cooperation paragraph sounds like a feeling type (Denying your own needs in any situation is illogical). In fact most of these sound feeling. "People usually have good intentions vs People are potentially dangerous" pretty much spells it out.

[The Exception]

PoLR only accounts for disliking fighting in a physical sense, not conflicts in general. it means "Physically Infantile", not "Conflict-Avoidant". The cooperation paragraph sounds like a feeling type (Denying your own needs in any situation is illogical). In fact most of these sound feeling. "People usually have good intentions vs People are potentially dangerous" pretty much spells it out.

What do you other people on the forum make of my post? I was hoping not to have another is warrior-librarian an LII or EII thread but you left me with no choice.

[KeroZen]

Windmills. Even if you're technically correct, I'm convinced that it won't happen and I'm also convinced that you'll agree in 2-3 years from now, it's just a fact based on my experience, without trying to come off as the old wise man. Besides, my late experience (in software choices, at least) tells me that quality is rather inversely proportional with popularity .

No you get me wrong, I know the differences are subtle, even illogical at times (Phaedrus pointed me to many problems in the MBTI functional analysis/breakdowns on typelogic.com and wikipedia, ie. they use the same word but mean something else) but although I'm surely naive, I think that an online form including many carefully chosen "sorting" questions (including making people read *real* socionics functional breakdowns etc) could be of some help.

Also this form would include a FAQ section where we will put *clearly* why the two looks the same, use the same words, but are different. You know, my initial "what's the current scientific consensus" idea, so from that point in time, anyone like Crispy or me coming on this forum (and others) could be redirected in a flash, even before the person even open his/her mouth!!!

"Hey what about the j/p switch because I just read that...." -> RTFM & STFU KTHX!

You see, a Don would chase windmills for the sake of chasing windmills, whereas I'm a closure kind of person. :wink:

[KeroZen]

Aleksei, Ashton: nice contributions, surely something to be considered.

Also ashton, thanks for pointing out that the j/p dichotomy can also be problematic for extratims, because the consensus on Ganin's site is that for E types we got almost a 1:1 match.

I wouldn't want to under-look that aspect as well, and in fact maybe all types should answer the same sorting questions...no exception for E types.

The form could also help people who are not confident for their own socionics irrational vs rational preference assert their type in the process, by asking carefully chosen questions...Some kind of "for all poor souls coming from MBTI here's the ultimate sorter tool to ease your pain"!

[KeroZen]

What do you other people on the forum make of my post? I was hoping not to have another is warrior-librarian an LII or EII thread but you left me with no choice.

Sorry pal, I already hijacked this thread, find another one to talk about yourself!

[Aiss]

What do you other people on the forum make of my post? I was hoping not to have another is warrior-librarian an LII or EII thread but you left me with no choice.

SEE warrior with LII dual-type librarian. Internal conflict is inevitable.

[Aleksei]

@KZ: On your project, you might get better type correlation between MBTI and Socionics by correcting for subtypes. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if many Te-INTps MBTI'ed as INTJ whereas Ni-INTps more frequently come out as INTP.

I have noticed that as well. Works for both extroverts and introverts, in fact; though in fact I have known people to be five or more different MBTI types for every one Socionics type, though the strongest correlation seems to be the first three letters (ENTx-ENTx, basically). Let's see if I can draw out a correlation table by subtype (based in which MBTI type the subtype sounds like):

ESE : ESFP
ESE : ESFJ
SEI : ISFP
SEI : ISFP
ILE : ENTP
ILE : INTP
LII : INTJ
LII INTP

EIE : ENTP
EIE : ENFP
IEI : INFP
IEI : ENFP
SLE : ESTP
SLE : ENTJ
LSI : ISTJ
LSI : ISTP

IEE : ENFP
IEE : ENFJ
EII : INFJ
EII : ISFP
LSE : ESTJ
LSE : ESTP
SLI : ISTP
SLI : ISTJ

SEE : ESFP
SEE : ESFJ
ESI : ISFP
ESI : ISFJ
LIE : ENTP
LIE : INTJ
ILI : INTJ
ILI : INTJ