SLOAN type and Socionics

[Aleksei]

Saw a thread on it but it was like 3 years old, so I wasn't sure if necro'ing it was ok. What's your SLOAN type?

[Creepy-male]

xc|u|ai, not exceptionally anything. (|u| = 16%)

This fits with being primarily a phleg-chol in five temperaments, I think.

EDIT

Rofl... I just realised... I made a very bad maths pun above.

[717495]

They've always correlated this to MBTI, as well as Big 5, they're pretty much the same thing, I have yet to see them able to correlate this to Socionics.

RCUxI.

[Trevor]

R something.

[Aleksei]

They've always correlated this to MBTI, as well as Big 5, they're pretty much the same thing, I have yet to see them able to correlate this to Socionics.

RCUxI.

Correlation's probably weak, but I wanna see if some kind of relationship can be established at least.

SLUEI (primary inquisitive) here.

[717495]

Yeah, well R/S is pretty good for I/E. The other correlations are too weak imo. I would list what I think they are, in terms of Socionics, but there's not really a point.

[Azeroffs]

sCoEi

[Aiss]

rluei

[Aleksei]

Yeah, well R/S is pretty good for I/E. The other correlations are too weak imo. I would list what I think they are, in terms of Socionics, but there's not really a point.

What are they anyway? Let's see if they match mine.

[Absurd]

First time I hear of it. Thanks.

SCOEN.

not easily hurt, motivated, likes compliments, not mystical, not prone to envy, not particularly intellectual, decisive, mature, not bitter, not very introspective, fits in most places, traditional, keeps emotions under control, not very artistic, self expressive, values society, averse to stealing, attracted to prestige, keep up an appearance, trusting, does not second guess self, realist, fearless, not a good loser, self confident, does not put the welfare of others ahead of self, competitive, doubt free, feels you have to be tough on people to get things done, not afraid to draw attention to self, demanding, not easily hurt, not known for generosity, speaks up regardless of consequences, able to stand up for self, accomplishes work on time, rarely compliments people, productive, hard working, impatient, good at sports, makes plans and sticks with them, prefer to lead, controlling, aggressive, not easily frustrated, not embarrassed by praise, does not require lots of time alone to recharge, opinionated, more dominant than submissive

[Creepy-male]

RCUAI:

philosopher, philosophy professor, scientist, research scientist, novelist, author, astronomer, astronaut, freelance writer, archeologist, researcher, environmental scientist, scholar, physicist, anthropologist, forest ranger, museum curator, theologian, bookseller, biotechnology, guitarist, game designer, aerospace engineer, college professor, geologist, pilot, egyptologist, video game designer, audio engineer, poet, ecologist, biochemist, animator, genetics researcher, forensic anthropologist, wildlife biologist, computer programmer, paleontologist, chemist, freelance artist, assassin, comic book artist, cartoonist, engineer, art historian, strategist, psychoanalyst, artist, research psychologist, environmental engineer, historian, computer engineer, sailor, computer animator, political scientist, non profit sector, forensic scientist, history professor, software engineer, screenwriter microbiologist

[Crispy]

They've always correlated this to MBTI, as well as Big 5, they're pretty much the same thing, I have yet to see them able to correlate this to Socionics.

RCUxI.

Here's the Big 5 --> Socionics/MBTI correlation.
Extroversion = Extroversion
Openness = Intuitive
Agreeableness = Feeling
Conscientiousness = Judging
Neuroticism = Unhealthy (on the type-independent healthy/unhealthy spectrum)

Someone who scores high on Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness and Neuroticism is therefore tested as an unhealthy ENFj.

When I find how the SLOAN type works I'll list that too.

EDIT:
SLOAN - Big 5 - MBTI/Socionics
Social - Extroversion - Extroversion
Limbic - Neuroticism - Unhealthy
Orderliness - Conscientiousness - Judging
Accommodating - Agreeableness - Feeling
Non-curious - Un-Openness - Sensing
Someone who scores SLOAN on the SLOAN is therefore tested as an unhealthy ESFj.

SLOAN - Big 5 - MBTI/Socionics
Reserved - Introversion - Introversion
Calm - Un-Neuroticism - Healthy
Unstructured - Un-Conscientiousness - Perceiving
Egocentric - Un-Agreeableness - Thinking
Inquisitive - Openness - Intuitive
Someone who scores RCUEI on the SLOAN is therefore tested as a healthy INTp.

Correlated answers given so far to see results:
Note: Like any personality test, these will not be 100% accurate, duh.

16types big 5 results:
Aleksei: SLUEI - ENTp
Arthur: RCUAI - INFp
Poli: RCUXI - INXp
Azeroffs: SCOEI - ENTj
Ashton: SCUEI - ENTp
Aiss: RLUEI - INTp
Absurd: SCOEN - ESTj

[Aleksei]

Here's the Big 5 --> Socionics/MBTI correlation.
Extroversion = Extroversion
Openness = Intuitive
Agreeableness = Feeling
Conscientiousness = Judging
Neuroticism = Unhealthy (on the type-independent healthy/unhealthy spectrum)

Someone who scores high on Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness and Neuroticism is therefore tested as an unhealthy ENFj.

Why would ego types be Agreeable?

[Crispy]

All Feeling types, including Fe egos, are agreeable in relation to all Thinking types. That is what Feeling means in socionics.

[Aleksei]

All Feeling types, including Fe egos, are agreeable in relation to all Thinking types. That is what Feeling means in socionics.

Feeling in Socionics simply means a focus on emotion and subjective experience, as opposed to logic and objective truth. Nothing about agreeableness. My experience with Fe-ego types is that they are much more likely Egocentric than not.

[Azeroffs]

My experience with Fe-ego types is that they are much more likely Egocentric than not.

Maybe for betas, but if any s-type correlates to agreeableness, it's alpha SF.

[Aleksei]

Maybe for betas, but if any s-type correlates to agreeableness, it's alpha SF.

Indeed, I should have clarified as much my bad. Nevertheless, Crispy's assertion is assfuck retarded and unsupported. Beta NFs are conceited little pricks.

[Crispy]

Feeling in Socionics simply means a focus on emotion and subjective experience, as opposed to logic and objective truth. Nothing about agreeableness. My experience with Fe-ego types is that they are much more likely Egocentric than not.

They are both the same when you get to the bare bones. Your experiences are based on mistypings.

[Azeroffs]

Indeed, I should have clarified as much my bad. Nevertheless, Crispy's assertion is assfuck retarded and unsupported. Beta NFs are conceited little pricks.

I disagree about crispy's assertion. F definitely correlates to agreeableness when compared to T.

Not 100% of course, but it's there. Even for beta NFs, but probably to a lesser degree. IME, all beta NFs have been quite agreeable. I think it might be all those self-absorbed e3 EIEs and e4w3 IEIs who are messing things up.

[Aleksei]

I disagree about crispy's assertion. F definitely correlates to agreeableness when compared to T.

It does as a general rule, but not in the absolute. Agreeableness, to me, seem to correspond most closely to and valuation.

[Crispy]

Let's compare how you interpret dichotomies to how I do:

Your interpretation of Agreeable/Unagreeable
Agreeable:ESFp ISFj ENFp INFj ESTj ISTp ESFj ISFp
Results: All of delta, and all SF's
Unagreeable: INTp ENTj ENTp INTj ENFj ESTp ISTj ENFj
Results: All of beta, and all NT's


My interpretation of Agreeable/Unagreeable
Agreeable: ESFj ISFp ENFj INFp ESFp ISFj ENFp INFj
Results: All F types
Unagreeable: ENTp INTj ESTp ISTj ENTj INTp ESTj ISTp
Results: All T types

Now that they are back to back; what makes more sense?
Is there a reason for you senselessly complicating what should be simple definitions of dichotomies?
If you want to be characterized as Unagreeable, you are NOT a feeling type. Learn the theory please.

[April]

I agree with Crispy's correlations.

I'm RCOAI.

[Crispy]

Correlates to INFJ/INFj
The j comes from Organized > Unstructured.

[Crispy]

Ya I'm near the border between the two as well. J/P is the most common inaccuracy on tests.

[Azeroffs]

If you want to be characterized as Unagreeable, you are NOT a feeling type.

Idk about that though..

[Crispy]

Pondering whether you might be Unagreeable would not dictate it so. But if you know exactly what they mean by Agreeableness and confidently choose to be known as Unagreeable, it reveals much about which side of the spectrum you're on.

It doesn't apply to those new to big 5, but Aleksei has been studying this for a long time (or so he says). He should know what the dichotomies mean by now.

[them]

RCUEI

atheist/agnostic tendencies, unconcerned with public image, lower energy level, does not value tradition, avoidant, does not put the welfare of others above self, not punctual, unproductive, does not believe in human goodness, not easily moved to tears, seldom bothered by the suffering of strangers, insensitive to the needs of others, relaxed, quiet around strangers, tendency to believe only in self, people have trouble reading them but they don't care, late finishing work, acts without planning, withdrawn, rarely too busy, not a perfectionist, uncooperative, not prone to complimenting people, does not believe in life after death, avoids crowds, prefers unpredictable to organized, not passionate about bettering the world's condition, does not second guess self, able to control cravings, calm in crisis, ambivalent to the feelings of others, believes in the importance of art, dislikes small talk, socially uncomfortable, private, not known for generosity, acts without consulting others, hard to get to know, not easily frustrated, interested in intellectual pursuits, not open about feelings, loner, asks many questions, open to change, influenced more by self than others, bored at work

[CILi]

Used to be rcaui back when I was really shy. Then rcuei. Now it's slUei.

Similar story here.

Was: Shy/Anxious RLoAI

Am: Carefree sLuAI

Will Be: ?

(By Crispy's model, EII -> IEE?)

[Crispy]

Bullshit. Big 5 scores are known to vary depending on upbringing, intellect, gender, number of siblings, economy, education, culture, age, etc. etc. Here's a bit about the correlation between big5 and MBTI/Keirsey, according to similarminds: Global 5/Big 5 to Jung/MBTI/Kiersey correlations

As you can see, the only correlations that are high (but not 100%) are MBTI introversion/extraversion and MBTI judging/perceiving. So, the Big 5 can quite accurately point out people's temperament, but not their strong functions.

That correlation is as I've said. The greater truth is that the phenomenon(s) that the Big 5 describes are the same as the ones discovered for socionics (the four main dichotomies). They didn't give enough credit to their findings when the attached the word "medium" to the correlation. I assure you they were wrong. You will discover this too only after much study.

Since the Big 5 is (if only somewhat) accepted in the scientific community, it is the closest bridge socionics can cross into the scientific realm.

[Crispy]

No, I believe you scored ENTp on a big 5 test. If after extensive study of both socionics and big 5 you believe you still must be SXUEI without relying on a test, then it is most likely you are indeed either ENTp or severely misled.

[Creepy-male]

Chalking Crispy's ENFp typing up to "Doesn't use Socionics" too.

How many is that now?

[Crispy]

Hey I found my result without taking a test, and guess what? It sounds exactly like me, and most other healthy INTj's!

RCOEI
withdrawn, not wild and crazy, private, loner, not relationship obsessed, not swayed by emotions, insensitive to the needs of others, unhelpful, interested in intellectual pursuits, avoidant, does not put the needs of others ahead of self, thinks before acting, very scientific, not upset by the misfortune of strangers, avoids small talk, values solitude, private, does not get worked up about most things, fearless, unaffected by the suffering of others, calm in crisis, not easily excited, won't do much to avoid rejection, not known for generosity, not easily confused, cold, not prone to complimenting others, dislikes most people but tries to get along to minimize hostility, hard to get to know, more dominant than submissive, not easily hurt, driven by reason, influenced more by self than others, rarely worried, hard to impress, not that interested in relationships, hard to influence, not concerned about failing when trying something new, self confident, knows why they do things, not easily moved to tears, not prone to jealousy, not guided by moods

If there is no correlation, please explain to me what is NOT LII about that paragraph.

[Creepy-male]

Also, your correlations break down, since Neuroticism and Extraversion are not fully orthogonal: there's a tendency towards low N in high E, and vice-versa. And saying that Openness is N is saying all Sensors are closed-minded, and also by implication are dimwits, since there is, again, a correlation between intelligence and Openness. [EDIT: nvm, have read up on Openness, but it does raise a different problem. Read below.]

Also, I would like to know where you got your definitions of the dichotomies from. My understanding, as per Rick's site, is that the dichotomies are where you focus your attention (with the exception of J/P), not "are you more X than the rest of the populace with opposing trait Y".

EDIT

The problem is this: "Each factor consists of a cluster of more specific traits that correlate together." When mapping one system to another, those clusters of traits never line up perfectly. In fact, just looking at Openness alone, the trait of "narrow range of interests" sounds like Socionics Introversion, meaning your one Big Five factor, that is (supposedly) orthogonal to the other five factors does not map to a single dichotomy in Socionics. That is a problem.

This is the reason why correlations are always going to be loose, and why I am highly skeptical of your correlations, considering how "neat" they are. (And a funny bit of trivia for your consideration... in geography, when someone draws a straight line on a map, it's called messy geography.)

Anyway, I have a headache, so I'm not really going to bother with a complete critique of your Established Truth there, but as I said, I am extremely skeptical; perhaps by virtue of very much breaking your theory there myself.

[Crispy]

It all ties back to what brought all these personality theories around in the first place. None of these were invented; they are a collection of observed phenomenon, originally described in detail by Jung and expanded, for better or for worse, by everyone else. I can tie it all together so easily because they all have the same reference point. You can be skeptical. It took me about a year of reading to get to this point, and I won't be surprised if it takes others similar amounts of time to understand why. I still struggle to see why so many people want things to be complicated and enigmatic. The simple answers are in plain sight, taunting you.

EDIT: If any of you haven't tried yet, read the SLOAN type description that would match your current socionics self-type according to my previous lists (reading both the healthy and unhealthy ones helps), and see if it doesn't describe you better than whatever SLOAN type you tested as before. The most common mistake is tests and bad test questions, and that is most likely the case here. Notice how almost all the misses were only off by one letter.

EDIT2:

Also, your correlations break down, since Neuroticism and Extraversion are not fully orthogonal: there's a tendency towards low N in high E, and vice-versa.

You are describing the trend of unhealthy introverts in an extroverted world.

Also this isn't geography; it's mathematics.

[Creepy-male]

Fair enough. xc|u|an and xc|u|ai both describe me equally well.

[somavision]

Extroversion results were moderately high which suggests you are, at times, overly talkative, outgoing, sociable and interacting at the expense of developing your own individual interests and internally based identity.

Orderliness results were low which suggests you are overly flexible, random, scattered, and fun seeking at the expense too often of structure, reliability, work ethic, and long term accomplishment.

Emotional Stability results were moderately high which suggests you are relaxed, calm, secure, and optimistic.

Accommodation results were medium which suggests you are moderately kind natured, trusting, and helpful while still maintaining your own interests.

Inquisitiveness results were moderately high which suggests you are intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical.

Your Global5/SLOAN type is SCUAI

[Aleksei]

If you want to be characterized as Unagreeable, you are NOT a feeling type.

So Gilly's not a Feeling type then?

Don't be silly. You appear to believe that people are exact type templates, which even a cursory evaluation of human personality proves false, especially considering type theory has no basis in neurology to begin with -- it's all rooted on bullshit mysticism. Human beings are far more complex than this.

Incidentally, I'm actually almost borderline on Agreeable/Egocentric (my proper SLOAN+ score is sLue|I|). Most Beta NFs I've found are more egocentric than myself.

[Aleksei]

Does that correlate with a Socionics or Myers Briggs type at all?

Yeah, INFJ. There's no direct relationship though, like there isn't a direct relationship between any disjointed type system and any other.

[Aleksei]

It all ties back to what brought all these personality theories around in the first place. None of these were invented; they are a collection of observed phenomenon, originally described in detail by Jung and expanded, for better or for worse, by everyone else. I can tie it all together so easily because they all have the same reference point. You can be skeptical. It took me about a year of reading to get to this point, and I won't be surprised if it takes others similar amounts of time to understand why. I still struggle to see why so many people want things to be complicated and enigmatic. The simple answers are in plain sight, taunting you.

I require evidence.

[Microknight]

RCUEI