SLOAN type and Socionics

[KeroZen]

Ha but I must confess:

Now that I think of it, I went through the same delusional stage at some point, but instead of dropping one system in favor of the other, I discarded them both and completely quited learning and even talking about them!

Now that I solved the function order problem everything fit perfectly, on paper at least.

[KeroZen]

Quoting Crispy again: "Here's the reason I even bother arguing for this direct correlation.
Fact: Of all personality theories available today, Socionics has the most potential for truth.
If: MBTI types don't correlate to socionics
Then: Every second anyone has ever spent reading MBTI has been wasted because it could have been better spent reading Socionics, and because MBTI dichotomies and functions and descriptions were bullshit all along. All those poor souls yapping away on MBTI forums are talking about misinformation and bad data.
If: MBTI types correlate to socionics
Then: We can bridge the gap between the two easily by explaining the SAME four dichotomies in clear detail. Many mistyping could be fixed. MBTI would cease to be completely useless (but still obsolete) ."

Aaaaaaaaah! Here we fully resonate. Spot on! I wouldn't say it any better.

[Aleksei]

That makes me sad, because it's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.

[KeroZen]

Harassing Crispy with his own quotes while he's sleeping: "I spent a much longer time thinking I was INTP than I did thinking I was INTp, thanks to the clear cut (socionics) descriptions."

Not sure I understand it right, but lol yes, you spent less time thinking you were INTp because you realized you were INTj in between...as you current signature shows... And as INTP = INTj + blotch_residue....

[Aleksei]

Crispy is not sleeping. He is in fact in Socionix tinychat, looking like some aspie kid.

[KeroZen]

Aleksei, are you in a bad mood or do you dislike me so much that you don't even care to say more than it's a load of crap?

I mean, it's not like I made a single argument or provided a single example, but instead I gave many concrete ones.

Hell I even considered and partly acknowledged all points of view, never discarding anything, and even if I have my convictions and beliefs in what I say, I dare you to find where I'm inflexible, not open, or not considering conflicting evidence.

I even mentioned the MBTI statistical distribution skew, to be really honest with everybody.

I'm waiting for more solid evidences against what I said, I didn't even finish reading the other thread, and didn't dig my nicknames analysis out either...

And by solid evidence I will disregard anyone having changed or discovered his/her type in the last couple of years (at least, depending on mileage!) Hm no it sounds a bit fascistic, but you get the point.

[KeroZen]

Quoting polikujm again: "There's always some meshed rule about Socionics that some INTj has to impose on others' understandings so it will fit their own oversimplified systemization of things. I've heard them all and am not interested. Like I said, the correlation is there. It's just a correlation though. Socionics "descriptions" are similar to MBTI ones, but the descriptions are aids illustrating manifestations, they don't fully connect to the essence of Socionics modules, which is why you can sometimes have a large variance between expected external happenings and the actual substance of internal mind patterns and their own variances in time, sharpening to experiences. The flow goes in a circle, not a perfectly traceable line segment."

I got nothing to say against that. Maybe we try to oversimplify and the M conversion function is indeed way too complex to define or evaluate. I respect your right for not wanting to bother. Socionics by itself is fine, but exactly as in Crispy's remark I seconded, we're then doomed to perpetual harassment by the MBTI community unless we manage to remove every single occurrence of the 4 letters acronyms in all socionics sites online (we stick to TIM nomenclature)

But don't forget it's quite stereotypical for IEI and ILI types (the ones supposedly behind these theories, at least some say) to see the hidden lines between all the dots. They are the only two types having Ni in slot #1, and they tend to see and envision the big pictures pretty well.

[KeroZen]

Quoting ashton: "An entirely new theory is going to have to end up supplanting Socionics for any real work to get done. Socionics, while an improvement (in part) over its contemporaries such as MBTI, is ultimately going to be a theoretical dead-end."

But all initiatives I saw were perceived like crazy geeks or worse like tcaudilllg on here (and I'm sure already some people reading me put me in the same "insane people" category....)

I agree this could be the holy graal or at least the next level.

But this is the purpose of my quest for consensus too: unification.

[KeroZen]

Quoting labcoat (interesting): "In David Keirsey's Please Understand Me 1, Keirsey describes a strong attraction between types that would be conflictors to eachother under a XXXx = XXXX correlation with socionics. That is, INTJ would supposedly be strongly attracted to ESFP, and so on."

Alright INTJ -> blotch -> INTp + ESFp =

If even Keirsey is on our side! I couldn't ask more!

[KeroZen]

Quoting labcoat again (and views of other posts): "I remember the description of Anima/animus doesn't mention anything about a natural tendency to conflict and also mentions "mysterious attraction" similar to that between novelty partners.

There is very little substance to these relations. Animus and novelty are basically just explained as "very different, mysterious attraction while at the same time difficulty finding common ground". Anyone could come up with that based on what one already knew about the types. None of it adds any real new information to the theory."

Yes you read the two one liners I posted, but maybe you were not aware that anima/animus archetype was a really deep (and surely incomplete) subject in C.G.Jung's works?

Also typelogic is a commercial service/company, they have no interest in telling people their cooking recipe remember?

[Crispy]

If J/P switch is correct, can you show that the IJ temperament in MBTI correlates to the Ip temperament in Socionics and visa versa? Additionally, do you see Kierseys SP temperament types as ISTj, ISFj, ESTp, and ESFp? And do you also see Kierseys SJ temperament types as ISTp, ISFp, ESTj, and ESFj? That would make this a lot more interesting. The problem is I see no ISXx's who think they J/P switched from MBTI to socionics. If you can find a few of those then that would be some good evidence that has been missing so far. I do agree that if a direct translation doesn't work, than the J/P switch is the only thing that could work and still make MBTI credible. Although if J/P switch is the truth, it would have to be absolute and work for all introvert types. A slim possibility, but I can still conceive of it.

[KeroZen]

Then quoting ashton arguing against Subterranean over differences in dichotomies: "I don't buy that Extrotrim/Introtrim is any different from Extroversion/Introversion. I'd like to see that sourced if so. Otherwise, I'm convinced people are making arbitrary shit up to justify absurdities. There's absolutely no good reason to assume that they're fundamentally different dichotomies referring to totally different facets of reality."

Same, I'd like to be directed to more evidence of that.

Also don't forget that one sees the EGO and SUPERID blocks of the second one (telescopes...telescopes...) hence it's normal that there are differences in testing methodology and purpose, and quite possibly it impacts the M conversion method too (if one focuses too much on apparent SUPERID then it's clear all type descriptions will focus more on expresssions of these aspects..I dunno)

[KeroZen]

Quoting Subterranean: "and the Sun and the Moon are both made out of matter. There are people who have views they claim are Socionics who would say that a Ni type also has fairly strong Se."

Alright then wikisocion must be corrected, as like I described with IEI/SLE duality above, using quotes from duality and functions order descriptions, Ni types don't have a strong Se for sure, but they value Se a lot. And their pathetic hidden agenda make them show Se (and Ti in this particular Ni type example, Fi for ILI) in awkward ways.

[KeroZen]

If J/P switch is correct, can you show that the IJ temperament in MBTI correlates to the Ip temperament in Socionics and visa versa? Additionally, do you see Kierseys SP temperament types as ISTj, ISFj, ESTp, and ESFp? And do you also see Kierseys SJ temperament types as ISTp, ISFp, ESTj, and ESFj? That would make this a lot more interesting. The problem is I see no ISXx's who think they J/P switched from MBTI to socionics. If you can find a few of those then that would be some good evidence that has been missing so far. I do agree that if a direct translation doesn't work, than the J/P switch is the only thing that could work and still make MBTI credible. Although if J/P switch is the truth, it would have to be absolute and work for all introvert types. A slim possibility, but I can still conceive of it.

I'm still reading the other thread while writing down my remarks here, then I'll post there to redirect people here (yes I know I'm a f***ing thread hijacker since I joined and I apologize for that)

I'm at the part where you are being creative (post 158) I'm going back to you soon!

[KeroZen]

Nice posts by Jarno and Words after that, you both seem very knowledgable.

But nobody said the scales/dichotomies/you-name-them were not continuous, and the huge amount of statistical data gained with Big5/SLOAN also shows: 16 types (don't nitpick with 5th split) and also continuous distribution leading to creation of SLOAN+ to read between the lines, like our subtypes systems.

MBTI is lacking in this regard (subtypes) AFAIK.

[KeroZen]

I can't find Phaedrus post back and I already quoted other people opinions enough (I'm not even 100% sure we agree, in fact I even contacted him directly so he could answer himself)

In another post by Jarno but in the "Both MBTI and Socionics are Correct?" thread this time:

"MBTI functions are flawed. I can think of many more ways of ordering functions, and they would all be flawed. Because only socionics functions are correctly ordered. conclusion: ignore mbti functions"

-> ....or use teh mighty blotch and it all magically match!

[KeroZen]

And as I said I'm no liar and keep my promises, and also because apart from ranting I didn't really contribute anything new of my own to the common tea-pot, leading someone to tell me I produced a saddening but consequent heap of crap, here is my past stereotypes nicknames analyse.

Of course as I've been a defender of the mighty blotch since I spotted the functions order problem, I've compiled all nicknames *after* applying the blotch (when taking MBTI nicknames ex: INTJ -> blotch -> I wrote that down with the INTp nicknames list ok?)

But you'll have to decide if words really belong. I said a kid could do it, but I lied, having a deep knowledge of all 16 types in both systems can help in most times, and I'm sure many words are debatable. But if the blotch is false, about 50% of the types (all I types) should have an apparent word grouping problem at once. For E types there is no visible blotch (but as explained function order is different)

Also I could have made mistakes when collecting them, like anybody. I reckon I exaggerated the amount of data I collected a bit, it's more 7-10 per type on average but I invite you all to complete the list with other nicknames you can find.

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

Starting with the I types:

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, Inspector, Examiner, Duty Fulfillers, Reliant, Planner, Administrator, Craftsman
4) ISTj = ISTP = Inspector, Pragmatist, Crafter, Craftsman, Mechanics, Realist, Analyzer, Operator, Inspector
5) ISFp = ISFJ = Mediator, Peacemaker,Protector, Defender, Nurturers, Supporter, Caretaker
6) ISFj = ISFP = Guardian, Conservator, Composer, 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

And for reference and objectivity, here are the E types:

1) ENFp = ENFP = Psychologist, Reporter, Champion, Advocate, Inspirers, Visionary, Discoverer, Social Philosopher, Tom Sawyer, Psychologist
2) ENFj = ENFJ = Mentor, Actor, Teacher, Mentor, Givers, Sage, Envisioner, Growth Teacher, Mentor
3) ESTj = ESTJ = Administrator, Director, Supervisor, Overseer, Guardians, Enforcer, Implementor, Supervisor, Traditionalist, Director
4) ESTp = ESTP = Legionnaire, Conqueror, Promoter, Persuader, Doers, Adventurer, Executor, Wheeler-dealer, Marshal
5) ESFj = ESFJ = Bonvivant, Enthusiast, Provider, Supporter, Caregivers, Helper, Facilitator, Caretaker, Dutiful host, Bonvivant
6) ESFp = ESFP = Politician, Ambassador, Performer, Entertainer, Performers, Joker, Motivator, Presenter, Politician
7) ENTp = ENTP = Seeker, Inventor, Inventor, Originator, Visionaries, Innovator, Explorer, Searcher
8) ENTj = ENTJ = Enterpriser, Pioneer, Fieldmarshall, Chief, Executives, Leader, Strategist, Mobilizer, General, Enterpriser

It's interesting because they all come from different systems, all from a Jungian heritage, and if you find nicknames irrelevant, think about that: people, scientists for the most part, whose lives were devoted to these theories ended all having to chose exactly ONE WORD that would describe the type the most. So it's carefully chosen I think and of importance.

My analysis: there are anomalies for SF and ST types, but as word order represents more or less source order (when I found a new source, I added the word for all 16 types) they must be clarified because it looks like it's always the same two sources that are conflicting but not the others.

For NT types we got two times mastermind, but that's because both LII and ILI like to be seen this way hehe. Otherwise and same for NF types, it's pretty clear the blotch works.

For all E types, our reference, and as expected, it's spot on (no need to convert type)

[KeroZen]

Dear Ashton,

Please do take some of your time to read this thread entirely, as I indirectly quoted and commented some of your own posts in there. Also I know you're an intelligent and pertinent person so I would like to ear your opinion.

[KeroZen]

If J/P switch is correct, can you show that the IJ temperament in MBTI correlates to the Ip temperament in Socionics and visa versa? Additionally, do you see Kierseys SP temperament types as ISTj, ISFj, ESTp, and ESFp? And do you also see Kierseys SJ temperament types as ISTp, ISFp, ESTj, and ESFj? That would make this a lot more interesting. The problem is I see no ISXx's who think they J/P switched from MBTI to socionics. If you can find a few of those then that would be some good evidence that has been missing so far. I do agree that if a direct translation doesn't work, than the J/P switch is the only thing that could work and still make MBTI credible. Although if J/P switch is the truth, it would have to be absolute and work for all introvert types. A slim possibility, but I can still conceive of it.

Maybe we just put the finger on something. You're hinting about ISxx types and it's where we got data anomalies. And looking more closely and how I remember it: words 1 & 2 are from socionics sources, 3rd one is Keirsey (the rest is mixed) And indeed that could be something to consider.

But, we're talking stereotypes names, don't forget I demonstrated that they are compatible down to the functional level after the conversion. I'm too tired to continue for today, so it's time for you guys to do some constructive criticism!

[KeroZen]

I wonder if Ganin's site being the first entry point for most westerners learning socionics is not responsible of most people telling the j/p switch is a myth but not being able to argue rationally or defend their point of view...

Afterall the term "myth" is used there, meaning for newcomers: "it's safe to disregard any people even approaching the subject". But while I respect Ganin's work (it's one of the socionics sites I visit the most, be it only for it's intertype calculator applet or it's simple "who is who" summary sheet) it's also been said alot in various other places that his views can be often too radical.

Or if it's indeed a myth, why after so many years nobody has found/gathered/collected in one place some sort of "read it once to be convinced with proof" page to direct any person like me or Crispy periodically coming on the forums and raising the same topic...so we would stfu once for good, bowing in front of the bright Truth?

[KeroZen]

Time for a summary:


AGAINST THE BLOTCH

1) MBTI statistical type distribution skew in some studies but not others
2) possible anomaly with ISxx types when considering nicknames only
3) possible (yet to be shown) subtle differences in dichotomies
4) possible differences in exact definition of the function roles (slots)
5) conversion method M could possibly be non-trivial or impractical

FOR THE BLOTCH

1) works for most types when considering nicknames only
2) works for all types for all functions (same kind, ordering difference)
3) works for duality and all other relation types (on paper at least)
4) fits my personal observations thus far
5) more readily express the fact that SUPERID block can be apparent in people

(but also a cons because if it's apparent and more emphasized by MBTI then it can smear onto the type descriptions)

[Crispy]

Starting with the I types:

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, Inspector, Examiner, Duty Fulfillers, Reliant, Planner, Administrator, Craftsman
4) ISTj = ISTP = Inspector, Pragmatist, Crafter, Craftsman, Mechanics, Realist, Analyzer, Operator, Inspector
5) ISFp = ISFJ = Mediator, Peacemaker,Protector, Defender, Nurturers, Supporter, Caretaker
6) ISFj = ISFP = Guardian, Conservator, Composer, 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

There's numerous problems with these. The most prominent is ISFp being Protector/Defender and ISFj being Composer/Artist/Aesthete/GentleAritist.

Next is the INTp being called a strategist when in fact the complete opposite is true:
# The tactical IM types are : ILE, ESE, LSI, IEI, ILI, ESI, LSE, and IEE.
# The strategical IM types are : SEI, LII, EIE, SLE, SEE, LIE, EII, and SLI.

Besides this the INXx seem like they can work both ways but for MBTI to be coherent it has to be one way or the other all the time. Trust me, it's only been about 6 months since I sorted through all the things you are now but the evidence for J/P switch is only a handful of INXx's who think the switch happened to them. At least half of the INXx's I've seen have not been affected by the switch at all, aside from finding out the MBTI functions were broked.

Additionally if J/P switch is true, it means:
All J types in MBTI are Dynamic Types in Socionics
All P types in MBTI are Static Types in Socionics
Can you find anywhere in the MBTI J/P dichotomy descriptions any clue as to how this could be the case?
MBTI J/P correlating to Socionics Dynamic/Static has to make more sense than MBTI J/P correlating to Socionics j/p for the switch to work. And this just doesn't seem likely.

And remember there are 3 possibilities for this situation, not just a yes/no answer.
1. Direct Translation works on 100% of people and MBTI is a coherent system of personality
2. J/P switch works on 100% of people and MBTI is a coherent system of personality
3. MBTI is an incoherent system of personality, as it contradicts Socionics, which is known to be a coherent system of personality.
With all the conflicting evidence, especially regarding INTx's, it seems 3 is the most likely to be correct. But it would be a shame as it would mean all discussions about MBTI are based on falsehoods. Sad but potentially true.

[KeroZen]

Precision about Ni dominant types:

I said ILI/INTp and IEI/INFp were gifted with the strongest Ni of all 16 types, being the only ones having Ni in slot #1. But I see the ILI as the "critical mastermind" and the IEI as the "ethical mastermind".

Their extroverted counterparts (mirrors) are ENTj and ENFj, the "field marshall" (which is a practical/action critical mastermind) and the "teacher" (which is a practical/action ethics mastermind)

The two first f*ck your mind with ideas by nagging you gently, the two others f*ck your mind by imposing their ideas on you and your children.

As for the LII/INTj, I prefer the "engineer/scientific" nickname better.



(yes it's a lol meaning don't take this post too seriously)

[KeroZen]

Crispy:

I was going to take some rest hehe!

Remember I posted this bit from socioniko.net front page:

MBTI: In addition to Jungian type dimensions a new dimension called J/P (judging/perceiving) has been introduced

Socionics: J/P is considered to fully coincide with Jungian dimension of Rationality/Irrationality

I'm not an expert either heh and too tired to be critical enough...

I read your point about the strategist nickname already, but it's in your case one single nickname that doesn't work. And while you were surely more focused on your two possible types (ILI and LII) I can assure you that from an external point of view, I don't feel bad with saying ILI can be strategists. Perhaps more "plotters" than strategists, yes.

All other nicknames I find rather conclusive for those two types but I might be non objective. Would make it ok for NF and NT types...

"Besides this the INXx seem like they can work both ways but for MBTI to be coherent it has to be one way or the other all the time. Trust me, it's only been about 6 months since I sorted through all the things you are now but the evidence for J/P switch is only a handful of INXx's who think the switch happened to them. At least half of the INXx's I've seen have not been affected by the switch at all, aside from finding out the MBTI functions were broked."

Doesn't surprise me that the only ones left thinking after everyone has moved back to more concrete grounds (aka real life) are intuitive types... Also doesn't surprise me that the 4 introverted N types think too much and are likely to reconsider their decisions over and over again.

Yes there could be something with ISxx types. But if the j/p switch doesn't occur for them, then we got a function mismatch problem and it all collapses.

TBD.

[KeroZen]

Also maybe for compatibility we need to redefine the 4th dichotomy accommodating both systems like in the dummy WXYZ lettered system I gave a zillion posts above, or something around those lines? New unified theory of everything anyone?!

Yes we should at least try to pinpoint exact incompatibilities or concrete differences between the two systems 4th dichotomy.

I can't answer your Static/Dynamic remark for now, so again you made a point.

Let's see if it's any better after some sleep.

[KeroZen]

And remember there are 3 possibilities for this situation, not just a yes/no answer.
1. Direct Translation works on 100% of people and MBTI is a coherent system of personality
2. J/P switch works on 100% of people and MBTI is a coherent system of personality
3. MBTI is an incoherent system of personality, as it contradicts Socionics, which is known to be a coherent system of personality.
With all the conflicting evidence, especially regarding INTx's, it seems 3 is the most likely to be correct. But it would be a shame as it would mean all discussions about MBTI are based on falsehoods. Sad but potentially true.

Alright, if #1 or #3 is true, then we must quit using 4 letters acronyms all-together to stop the confusion and the constant erosion of our already limited resources by MBTI followers, as we all agree that socionics is if not better at least more advanced.

#1 or #3 imply persuading Ganin/socionics.com to do the same and drop 4 letters acronyms from their "who is who sheet" and any other place online in fact (what a daunting task!).

If #2 is true, the two communities could be friends instead of foes . We'd then have to persuade Ganin to stop saying the blotch is a myth though...(what a daunting task!)

The worst is that in the east they use TIM instead, which is very fine and what we need to use if #1 or #3. But Ganin provides both nomenclatures on his site while at the same time saying it's not compatible...

I read all remarks about people typing A in MBTI and B in socionics, but in the light of it, those pretending they got extroverted-A and introverted-B clearly got something wrong as we've seen there's no blotch for extroverted types (find one single nickname that doesn't match if not)

Sometimes people just take a 40 questions test once and say: "this test gave me that particular result, period". No! Take the same test twice or more in a row, each time being honest but maybe just changing answers where you have doubts...You'll have a type results cluster for that test, and this is more relevant. Also try to answer in a positive mood then in a negative mood, explore all likely possibilities that are still correct answers for "you". You'll see you can't get all results while still being honest, you get a cluster and your real type is at its center.

For instance whatever the test I take, I'm able to score: INFp INFj INTp ENFj and I never ever got anything different whichever the system I use.

[Aleksei]

Aleksei, are you in a bad mood or do you dislike me so much that you don't even care to say more than it's a load of crap?

I dislike Crispy, and dislike his theory because it's inherently retarded. And have no interest in arguing why because I've already argued it to death with him and it's gotten me nowhere.

[Crispy]

Even if you take a test 100 times and get the same answer, you shouldn't count it. Tests are for new people who understand nothing of the theory. If someone wants accuracy, they really need to read all 16 descriptions from multiple websites.

#1 or #3 imply persuading Ganin/socionics.com to do the same and drop 4 letters acronyms from their "who is who sheet" and any other place online in fact (what a daunting task!).

Misleading information isn't really the problem for anyone intelligent enough to understand the theory in the first place. It's easy to be found out and ignored. Ganin's who's who sheet is actually correct in that it verifies that ENTP = ENTp (which is 100% true) but still leaves possibilities #1 and #2 open for introverts because a solid answer has not been found yet.

To find evidence of #2 you'd have to find evidence of the following:
Finding ISFps who think they are ISFJs
Finding ISFjs who think they are ISFPs
Finding ISTps who think they are ISTJs
Finding ISTjs who think they are ISTPs
Finding evidence that Judging in MBTI correlates to Dynamic in Socionics
Finding evidence that Perceiving in MBTI correlates to Static in Socionics

Without all of these the J/P switch is incomplete, and a direct translation makes more sense, given Modern Temperaments (IJ IP EJ EP) matching in both systems. #3 is what happens if results for both #1 and #2 remain inconclusive indefinitely.


And don't mind Aleksei; he's just a fat unhealthy ENTP (and even tests on Big 5 as one ) who thinks you can be both ENTP in MBTI and ENFj in Socionics. If you want some hilarity make some popcorn and read some of his completely inaccurate type lists. Otherwise he can safely be ignored.

[Crispy]

Here is why the J/P switch is false:
Kiersey's ISFP description

More than the other Artisans, Composers are in tune with their senses, and so have a sure grasp of what belongs, and what doesn't belong, in all kinds of works of art. While the other Artisans are skilled with people, tools, and entertainment, Composers have an exceptional ability-seemingly inborn-to work with subtle differences in color, tone, texture, aroma, and flavor.

Although Composers often put long, lonely hours into their artistry, they are just as impulsive as the other Artisans. They do not wait to consider their moves; rather, they act in the here and now, with little or no planning or preparation. Composers are seized by the act of artistic composition, as if caught up in a whirlwind. The act is their master, not the reverse. Composers paint or sculpt, they dance or skate, they write melodies or make recipes-or whatever-simply because they must. They climb the mountain because it is there.

Communication tip for ISFP employee with a Rational boss This ability to lose themselves in action accounts for the spectacular individual accomplishments of some Composers, and yet on their social side they show a kindness unmatched by all the other types. Composers are especially sensitive to the pain and suffering of others, and they sympathize freely with the sufferer. Some have a remarkable way with young children, almost as if there were a natural bond of sympathy and trust between them. A similar bond may be seen between some Composers and animals, even wild animals. Many Composers have an instinctive longing for the wilds, and nature seems to welcome them.

Composers are just as plentiful as the other Artisans, say nine or ten per cent of the population, but in general they are very difficult to observe and thus greatly misunderstood. Very likely the difficulty comes from their tendency not to express themselves verbally, but through their works of art. Composers are usually not interested in developing ability in public speaking, or even in the art of conversation; they prefer to feel the pulse of life by touch, in the muscles, in the eyes, in the ears, on the tongue. Make no mistake, Composers are just as interested as other types in sharing their view of the world, and if they find a medium of non-verbal communication-some art form-then they will express their character quite eloquently. If not, they simply remain unknown, their quietness leaving their character all but invisible.

Kiersey's ISFJ description

We are lucky that Protectors make up as much as ten percent the population, because their primary interest is in the safety and security of those they care about - their family, their circle of friends, their students, their patients, their boss, their fellow-workers, or their employees. Protectors have an extraordinary sense of loyalty and responsibility in their makeup, and seem fulfilled in the degree they can shield others from the dirt and dangers of the world. Speculating and experimenting do not intrigue Protectors, who prefer to make do with time-honored and time-tested products and procedures rather than change to new. At work Protectors are seldom happy in situations where the rules are constantly changing, or where long-established ways of doing things are not respected. For their part, Protectors value tradition, both in the culture and in their family. Protectors believe deeply in the stability of social ranking conferred by birth, titles, offices, and credentials. And they cherish family history and enjoy caring for family property, from houses to heirlooms.

Wanting to be of service to others, Protectors find great satisfaction in assisting the downtrodden, and can deal with disability and neediness in others better than any other type. They are not as outgoing and talkative as the Provider Guardians [ESFJs], and their shyness is often misjudged as stiffness, even coldness, when in truth Protectors are warm-hearted and sympathetic, giving happily of themselves to those in need.

Communication tip for ISFJ employee with an Artisan boss

Their reserve ought really to be seen as an expression of their sincerity and seriousness of purpose. The most diligent of all the types, Protectors are willing to work long, hard hours quietly doing all the thankless jobs that others manage to avoid. Protectors are quite happy working alone; in fact, in positions of authority they may try to do everything themselves rather than direct others to get the job done. Thoroughness and frugality are also virtues for them. When Protectors undertake a task, they will complete it if humanly possible. They also know better than any other type the value of a dollar, and they abhor the squandering or misuse of money. To save, to put something aside against an unpredictable future, to prepare for emergencies-these are actions near and dear to the Protector's heart. For all these reasons, Protectors are frequently overworked, just as they are frequently misunderstood and undervalued. Their contributions, and also their economies, are often taken for granted, and they rarely get the gratitude they deserve.

Now tell me which you think is ISFp and which you think is ISFj, hmmmm? Notice how Kiersey doesn't look at the functional view of MBTI at all (because they are broken). Kiersey's descriptions point towards direct translation.

[KeroZen]

I dislike Crispy, and dislike his theory because it's inherently retarded. And have no interest in arguing why because I've already argued it to death with him and it's gotten me nowhere.

Aleksei, you're not seeing the point here and you are not objective due to your past griefs with Crispy.

Crispy's view is #1, mine is #2, current state of the art is #3 because of lack of scientific proof, and also because most people are fine with that, socionics being good enough for them.

So I'd like people choosing #3 solely because they couldn't care much, or because they don't give a shit (which both are noble and respectable points of views) to either avoid the discussion or to try to show some creative criticism.

Also anyone having solid evidence of #3 to throw on the plate, is welcome of course. But after all these years, if it was really the case, I'm pretty sure all moderators on all socionics forum would have created a FAQ entry somewhere saying "why socionics and MBTI are absolutely not compatible" and they would have redirected billions of newbees to this FAQ entry every time one of them was in the process of opening his mouth to talk about the blotch.

You know, some sort of "stfu! kthx!" redirection...

Thank you.

[Crispy]

If that's true then Kiersey is probably a significant deviation from standard MBTI. But he is also the one who carries evidence that INTJ and ESFP are duals, which would mean that evidence is contrived. If it's true that ISFx's go through the J/P switch then #2 is a step closer to being plausible but then anything produced by Kiersey would need to be discarded.

However those descriptions seem to match ISFp's and ISFj's as far as I can tell. They might not carry the types essence but they do seem to correlate more to their respective types than any of the other 15. Can you find anything that Contradicts ISFp's in the first and/or ISFj's in the second? Or is it you just don't like the descriptions in general?

[Aleksei]

Keirsey is a deviation from MBTI. So is Socionics in fact (Socionics is a stronger deviation in fact, even though Keirsey didn't use Jung as a base at all), but you seem to handwave that by claiming that the actual structure of MBTI is invalid to MBTI itself, which is retarded.

[Crispy]

You forget that MBTI types are not even based off their functions, but the four dichotomies, hence why the type is called INTJ and not NiTe or ILI. The functions were attached and mismatched after the descriptions were made. Socionics is obviously closer to Jung's Psychological Types than MBTI because of the mismatch (and the fact that a large portion of socionics relies on the correct functions). That is unless the J/P is correct, which would more or less make both equally close to Jung, but still highly unlikely.

[Aleksei]

You forget that MBTI types are not even based off their functions, but the four dichotomies, hence why the type is called INTJ and not NiTe or ILI.

No they're based on the functions (concretely, on Isabel Meyers' conception of them). Basically, she defined Judging as a preference for making decisions over gathering information, which itself she interpreted as having an externally-oriented Judging function. She was correct as well, as far as how her own Jungian functions were used -- I tried making an MBTI test based on the Socionics conception that J = J-dominance and ended up with a bunch of INFPs testing ENFP, and the like.

[Crispy]

If Myers was correct with the functions how has she never discovered a working set of intertype relations? We can prove she is wrong by witnessing how Socionics intertype relations stay true to reality. Without an equivalence to socionics, MBTI is a broken system of personality. You probably don't see your intertype relations working in reality because you are mistyped.

[Aleksei]

If Myers was correct with the functions how has she never discovered a working set of intertype relations?

Possibly because it was never her goal. MBTI seems to be a quick and easy way for rubes to understand their own personality -- something that Socionics kind of fails at. As such, MBTI functions aren't designed around interpersonal relationships.

[Aiss]

I agree that socionics is probably closer to Jung's original ideas, and what's more important, works better at modelling psyche.

The reasons why P/J switch doesn't work are really quite simple. Look at official MBTI P/J dichotomy.

Judging (J)
I use my decision-making (Judging) preference (whether it is Thinking or Feeling) in my outer life. To others, I seem to prefer a planned or orderly way of life, like to have things settled and organized, feel more comfortable when decisions are made, and like to bring life under control as much as possible.
Since this pair only describes what I prefer in the outer world, I may, inside, feel flexible and open to new information (which I am).
Do not confuse Judging with judgmental, in its negative sense about people and events. They are not related.
The following statements generally apply to me:

• I like to have things decided.
• I appear to be task oriented.
• I like to make lists of things to do.
• I like to get my work done before playing.
• I plan work to avoid rushing just before a deadline.
• Sometimes I focus so much on the goal that I miss new information.

Perceiving (P)
I use my perceiving function (whether it is Sensing or Intuition) in my outer life. To others, I seem to prefer a flexible and spontaneous way of life, and I like to understand and adapt to the world rather than organize it. Others see me staying open to new experiences and information.
Since this pair only describes what I prefer in the outer world, inside I may feel very planful or decisive (which I am).
Remember, in type language perceiving means “preferring to take in information.” It does not mean being “perceptive” in the sense of having quick and accurate perceptions about people and events.
The following statements generally apply to me:

• I like to stay open to respond to whatever happens.
• I appear to be loose and casual. I like to keep plans to a minimum.
• I like to approach work as play or mix work and play.
• I work in bursts of energy.
• I am stimulated by an approaching deadline.
• Sometimes I stay open to new information so long I miss making decisions when they are needed.

Now please explain to me how does it supposedly apply to socionics Ni, Si, Ti and Fi dominants. Or how it's supposedly an entirely separate dichotomy from Jungian rationality.

Jung described those types as "introverted irrationals" and "introverted rationals", respectively. P/J dichotomy might pretend to be an entirely new invention, but it assumes the traits of irrationality/rationality. The original author of the test herself is said to have realized (unfortunately I lost a direct source for this one) that introverts tend to test the reverse to her assumptions, that is, Pi dominants get P and Ji dominants Ji (what a surprise). I can see how it persists as MBTI is a money-making instrument, but not really how people who are really interested in it still don't address this basic point.

Type descriptions, especially based on MBTI functions, often don't match dichotomies anyway, and it's no surprise that many people make claims like "I'm this type but this dichotomy doesn't apply to me", as for introverts, it becomes impossible not to mistype on either dichotomies or functions. And those claims are ridiculous, seeing how "this pair only describes what I prefer in the outer world" is stressed - how can it not be obvious, if it's defined as an observable trait? But then, it's explicitly focused on superficial traits - as only this makes seemingly reliable testing which people will pay for possible - so what do you expect?

[Aiss]

No they're based on the functions (concretely, on Isabel Meyers' conception of them). Basically, she defined Judging as a preference for making decisions over gathering information, which itself she interpreted as having an externally-oriented Judging function. She was correct as well, as far as how her own Jungian functions were used -- I tried making an MBTI test based on the Socionics conception that J = J-dominance and ended up with a bunch of INFPs testing ENFP, and the like.

It proves nothing, seeing as she also misinterpreted Extraversion, most likely because she didn't look past its conventional meaning of sociability (though I'm not sure how widely used it was in English back then). To this day MBTI tests for it based on how outgoing you are.

[Aleksei]

It proves nothing, seeing as she also misinterpreted Extraversion, most likely because she didn't look past its conventional meaning of sociability (though I'm not sure how widely used it was in English back then). To this day MBTI tests for it based on how outgoing you are.

So? It was a model. It was her model, and it had some flaws in implementation. Socionics happens to be a better model. Still just a model.

And actually, the closest we know of to Jung's original conception of the functions is Lenore Thomson's definitions, which are unrelated to either Socionics or MBTI, but more commonly used by practitioners of the latter.

[Crispy]

As such, MBTI functions aren't designed around interpersonal relationships.

Hence why they are broken.

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. However, MBTI J/P is the same as Jungian Rationality/Irrationality, it's just explained differently (read: shittily). The confusion doesn't come from difference of definitions, but bad definitions.