Results 1 to 40 of 51

Thread: typing by jungian D's

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,629
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default typing by jungian D's

    Hey, I just wanted to know how often you actually find the right type of a person by simply checking the four jungian Dichotomies I/E, S/N, F/T and j/p. Think of some people you know and where you're very confident that you've typed them right. Imagine you just thought about this as a reference. I ask because this is typically the first typing attempt people use who are new to socionics and know nothing about it. It would be cool if you could answer with a rough percentage like 80% typed right. Not that I want to use it in a statistic, but it would be easier to compare. Thanks.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  2. #2
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoomer View Post
    Hey, I just wanted to know how often you actually find the right type of a person by simply checking the four jungian Dichotomies I/E, S/N, F/T and j/p. Think of some people you know and where you're very confident that you've typed them right. Imagine you just thought about this as a reference. I ask because this is typically the first typing attempt people use who are new to socionics and know nothing about it. It would be cool if you could answer with a rough percentage like 80% typed right. Not that I want to use it in a statistic, but it would be easier to compare. Thanks.
    Not being very experienced with typing, and coming more from MBTI, I still check these dichotomies, but it's only through slow exposure to socionics that I find them at all useful.

    So far, in my newbie-ish fashion, I can use the jungian dichotomies to narrow things down a little, and I ask myself about them first, but I could never settle on a type by doing that. It's a first question for me, but then I do better with looking for what IEs I observe in the person, ego block stuff. Also, just trying to figure out if they value Se/Si, Fe/Fi, Te/Ti, Ni/Ne. Getting a sense of their possible quadra. And how does the person make me feel? Then maybe going back to the jungian dichotomies to see if a better picture emerges.

    Like just now, I was briefly observing a guy in my old community in California whom I've been aware of for years. Flashy, real-estate agent, getting out of his BMW, always working, working, working. Seems to be mildly extraverted, in more than one meaning of the term. Seems to be steady, always in the same mode, possibly rational. Too heavy in demeanor to be alpha. Doesn't vibe Beta to me. That leaves me with Gamma and Delta. I know enough about him to think he's into Fi>Fe. He's interesting but I feel pushed away from him, not drawn toward ... Et cetera.

    Probably EJ.

    But to narrow it all down, I'd have to get closer to the guy (don't wanna) and be willing to decide he's not EJ Gamma or Delta.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  3. #3
    Haikus Computer Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,431
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    probably around 70%. i try to keep it simple and it usually works out for me.

  4. #4
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,629
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden View Post
    Not being very experienced with typing, and coming more from MBTI, I still check these dichotomies, but it's only through slow exposure to socionics that I find them at all useful.
    Hmm, thant's interesting. I expected it to be exactly the other way around. Because there is not so much to take into account if you try to find and MBTI type in my opinion, I thought it would be quite common to just check these four things and you've got the type. You know, there are no quadras or 'real' intertype relations, just the temperaments maybe.

    You pretty much described the way you would type someone, your algorithm. Just imagine you would use this 4-dichotomy-way on the people you're confident that you know what socionics type they have. Would you still be right?
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  5. #5
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics redefine dichotomies in comparison to MBTI.

    So while initially they may lose their usefulness and be better forgotten, as you start understanding socionics, it gives them new meaning. Especially introversion and rationality, and especially as temperaments, are very useful. In comparison to MBTI, N/S and T/F are much harder to figure out - it's usually better to look at values or the person's overall internal/external or abstract/involved tendencies (even though those are IE dichotomies).

    But thinking of it, I must admit I don't use dichotomies on their own now, though they may stand out in some cases and be a part of the broader reasoning. If I use four-letter code, it's usually because it's the simplest way to express something.

  6. #6
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    People don't identify with their type even when they know what their type is. Ie. lots of people don't identify with aliens.

  7. #7
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoomer View Post
    Hmm, thant's interesting. I expected it to be exactly the other way around. Because there is not so much to take into account if you try to find and MBTI type in my opinion, I thought it would be quite common to just check these four things and you've got the type. You know, there are no quadras or 'real' intertype relations, just the temperaments maybe.

    You pretty much described the way you would type someone, your algorithm. Just imagine you would use this 4-dichotomy-way on the people you're confident that you know what socionics type they have. Would you still be right?
    Well, once I'm confident of their socionics type, the 4-dichotomy picture may not be any clearer. In MBTI I can recognize maybe they would test differently.

    Take a probable SLE I spent months trying to type. He thinks in MBTI he must be ESFX. And maybe he is--in MBTI. He doesn't think of himself as intellectual enough to be a T type; this is a problem with his conception of T versus F, and/or the MBTI presentation of it, and also his own inability to see himself as others see him. And he has no clue at all if he's J or P.

    I observe him and see highs, lows, all the time--a very inconsistent pattern of life and energy both in the larger sense over years and within the course of a day, an hour. Is he going to be relaxed, hard-working, checked-out, checked-in at any given moment? Cannot predict. And he's highly adaptive to changes big and small. Irrational.

    But looking at it socionically, he's not an ethical type, imo. He doesn't interact with people on that level. He deals with them using interpersonal force and argumentation. He feels strong emotion internally. But if you were to meet him, you would not see it. You would see someone who is confrontational, pressureful, charming when he wants something, inappropriately funny, stubborn, and sometimes blunt, dry, pessimistic, and harsh. And despite all that, a pretty nice person. He strives, that is, to be nice.

    Sitting down with him and going through the information elements, as at Rick's site, he can easily say he absolutely values Se>Si, Fe>Fi, Ti>Te, and then somewhat Ni>Ne--that last one's not as clear-cut. He leads with Se. He doesn't follow up with Fi. He doesn't seem to have Ni PoLR. Hold him up against the SLE order of elements and it makes a lot of sense. Throw out the stock descriptions of SLE as an all-powerful being and understand that SLE can be quite self-doubting and things make more sense still.

    So, back to your question, it's hard for him to get beyond ESFX in MBTI, and it's hard for me to go beyond seeing him as ESXP in MBTI. I would say it's very, very hard to type him in that system and that it doesn't necessarily hold true to say he's SLE and ESTP. Imo, SLE delivers much more information than ESTP, so the socionics type obviates the MBTI questions.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  8. #8
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Assuming you actually know what you're looking for and how to find it, the Jungian dichotomies aren't actually all that bad. The problems occur when people distort or skew what those dichotomies actually attempt to define. Examples of this would be things like "introverts get drained around people" and "extroverts love to talk to lots of people" etc. Thinking back to people I know personally, I can definitely find good correlations between how they fit on the jungian dichotomies and their valued functions.

  9. #9
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No need for dichotomies if you can pinpoint functions.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  10. #10
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,624
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoomer View Post
    Hey, I just wanted to know how often you actually find the right type of a person by simply checking the four jungian Dichotomies I/E, S/N, F/T and j/p.
    I don't even bother. Jungian dichotomies put me up as ENFp.

    I am not a fucking Delta.
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor DarkAngelFireWolf69, Dmitri Lytov

  11. #11
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI-Si 8w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,421
    Mentioned
    186 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @MegaDoomer: LOL @ your signature.

    Why "greater than" 40 degrees, though?
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  12. #12
    limNol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    130
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Once you know someone's socionics type, all the dichotomies suddenly fall into place. But if you're trying to type someone based on dichotomies, things can get confusing very quickly because someone can seem like an "E" or a "P" at one time and an "I" or a "J" at another. Sometimes people's behavior will be really clear-cut, but for the most part Jungian dichotomies really are more situational and less constant than functions when it comes to actually deducing someone's type, which is why a lot of MBTI tests represent them as "spectrums."

  13. #13
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,629
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay, so typing only according to these four dichotomies is not very popular among the people here. I remember it's the only way we typed anyone in an MBTI forum I was active in a longer time ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parkster View Post
    @MegaDoomer: LOL @ your signature.

    Why "greater than" 40 degrees, though?
    Thanks. Well, this is the mistake I included on purpose to see how long it'll take until a forum member points it out. Well done, you've won an internet cookie! (or maybe I was just mixing up the symbols?)
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  14. #14
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI-Si 8w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,421
    Mentioned
    186 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoomer View Post
    (or maybe I was just mixing up the symbols?)
    I should know? And it's "carefully", not "carfully". But maybe you did that on purpose.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  15. #15
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parkster View Post
    I should know? And it's "carefully", not "carfully".
    His sig actually reads "less than" 40 degrees. When you asked why it read "greater than" I guess he thought he had made a mistake?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,470
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parkster View Post
    I should know? And it's "carefully", not "carfully". But maybe you did that on purpose.
    Why does it matter? His sig is funny enough.

  17. #17
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    E/I is plain and simple. Extroversion is characterized by action, Introversion by thought. A quote from Filatova's book (pg 21 E vs I):
    These Extrovert characters define the unique energetic value of their psyche: they give off the impression of active, purposeful (sometimes expansive) people - their willful purpose is directed outwards. In any case, the Extroverted type has a tendency towards direct interaction with the outside world.
    The same is generally true of the IMs to a large extent, the Introverted IM focused on clarification or ponderance, an internal attachment, and the Extroverted IM focused on external preservation or continuance.

    Judging and Perceiving are fairly straightforward. Ethical and Logical preferences are for Rational types, and these types have tendency toward structure and judging information immediately in reference to one's structure. Irrationals have preferences of Intuition or Sensing, and naturally operate their lives and take in information free from judgment, and can be fairly carefree and unprincipled in every day life. (I try not to think of the words 'spontaneous' or 'playful' when it comes to carefree, which could be either rational or irrational.)

    Most of these dichotomies are clear cut, the exact direction MBTI takes for the most part. The only one that is different is E/I.

    (I thought I'd add colors to make it more interesting.)


    Though some people disagreeing with Filatova's thoughts here might be an indication why they wouldn't also agree with how she, in one instance, puts the IM descriptions seen here, or her type descriptions and experiences, and so are allegedly typed differently in her frame of thinking.

    What I've learned from MBTI is that people sometimes have stereotypes and contradictory manifestations for certain types in relation to their dichotomies, where as Socionics is a lot more clear cut and simplified. For instance, a lot of people say INFJs can be fairly unstructured about their lives, and the INxJ types are really Perceivers, (in which they're really referring to the Socionics equivilent or dominant, which is not at all to say that INFJ = IEI or IEE.) It's just that Socionics dichotomies are pretty defined by their type descriptions, so if you can't figure out if you're a Rational or Irrational from this simple of a framework, then there must be a problem with the descriptions you are investigating.

    A similar notion in MBTI I heard is that a lot of ISTPs have Rational tendencies. My dad, for instance, types ISTP easily and fits the craftsman type of personality, however when looking at the Socionics-related terms which are there to fit the types in not any kind of loose basis, its obvious to me he has strong active/extrovert tendencies, and that he is also fairly Rational and likes organization, sticks to his principles, and likes to plan things out, even though he thinks of himself as a big open-minded Perceiver. Around me, he has learned to be more easygoing. I do not think that he would be an ISTJ or ESTJ in MBTI, at all, as those type and function descriptions do not fit him. He is a definite Keirsey (SP) Artisan.

    So you understand where I'm coming from with the word "stereotype," as in the dichotomies are pretty much the same, but the descriptions and observations can often differ, because the IM descriptions differ. There are reasons for these stereotypes, being Intuitives will sometimes come across more P, and Sensors more J, there is that correlation, however a general observation is that MBTI stereotypes will often not come to your aid in making a reliable decision, nevertheless the two theories' framework are fundamentally aligned. Read Socionics type descriptions. It's really best to take these dichotomies as they are, in the exact sense they are defined, and not think of all the loose correlations and internal manifestations that lead to uncertainty. Both dichotomy and IM are straightforward solutions to help find the type description that fits you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •