Two versions of LII-INTj

[Mariano Rajoy]

what is ? it is axiomatic thinking. to define , we have to come to some conscious understanding of the axiom of axioms. an axiom differs from a definition in that an axiom is non-conceptual knowledge upon which concepts/definitions are built.

how can an axiom be non-conceptual? the axiom takes priority in knowledge. it can be known, but not represented. it is self evident. for a series of fantastic axioms, look to euclidian mathematica. one such axiom is the point. a point is that which has position, but no dimension. this example demonstrates the self evident, and non-conceptual nature of axioms.

how do we come to know the axiom? if the mind reflects on its own intelligence, axioms present themselves. the mind sees axioms because that is the nature of mind. mind is axiomatic. the idea of "awakening the ego" and epistemology are one and the same.

[FDG]

5) I have noticed that the genuine LIIs on here (Pedro, Mystic, and Theodosis) write (think?) in a rather confusing, even convoluted manner, that drives people insane (which is why I asked Pedro to restate what he wrote earlier in this thread, as well as I found Mystic's last post to be rather hard to follow... just a different language). This could be a quality of Ti.

FDG strongly dislikes how I post.

This doesn't apply to Pedro, Mystic and Theodosis, though.

[Jonathan]

Mariano: what is ? it is axiomatic thinking. to define , we have to come to some conscious understanding of the axiom of axioms. an axiom differs from a definition in that an axiom is non-conceptual knowledge upon which concepts/definitions are built.

What do you mean by axioms being non-conceptual? Please explain.

My understanding of axioms is that they're statements (i.e. assertions that something is true) upon which one can deduce other statements; but unlike any old statement, they also function as operational definitions. That is, by making one or more statements about something, you implicitly define what it is. You can say, for example, that a point is anything for which a certain set of axioms is true. That eliminates the need for any further subjective speculation on what a point is. Is that what you mean?

Anyhow, if you've been reading this thread from the beginning, I think you'll see that saying " is axiomatic thinking" does not adequately describe the various understandings Socionists have about what is.

There seems to be a family of related things that people think of as , that includes both a certain kind of thinking and certain motivations. Classical socionics seems more focused on the motivations. Anyhow, at this point the cat's out of the bag that there's more than one view of we have to deal with.

Here's an interesting pattern though...a sort of working hypothesis:
...People who describe themselves as LII intuitive subtype and ILI intuitive subtype seem to have a certain similarity in motivations and outlook.
...Similarly, people who are ILI logical subtype and LII logical subtype also have a certain similarity of outlook.

That may seem kind of obvious, but I'm thinking there may be more to it....but that's still something I'm working on.

[Phaedrus]

Here's an interesting pattern though...a sort of working hypothesis:
...People who describe themselves as LII intuitive subtype and ILI intuitive subtype seem to have a certain similarity in motivations and outlook.
...Similarly, people who are ILI logical subtype and LII logical subtype also have a certain similarity of outlook.

That may seem kind of obvious, but I'm thinking there may be more to it....but that's still something I'm working on.

This can (hypothetically) be very important. Let's pretend for a moment that there are no subtypes, only the 16 "classical" types. Now, given that, how would you refute these working hypotheses:

1. All LIIs intuitive subtype and all ILIs intuitive subtype are (empirically) the same type, and that type is the INTP/INTp/ILI/the Critic/the Architect.

2. All LIIs logical subtype and all ILIs logical subtype are (empirically) the same type, and that type is the INTJ/INTj/LII/the Analyst/the Mastermind.

If you insist that we can't live without the subtypes, please explain why you think that they are indispensable.

[Mariano Rajoy]

axioms are those propositions upon which concepts are built. axioms are non-demonstrable. show me a point; it cannot be done. (i continue with the "point" as an example only)

i propose axioms are self-evident truths. i would like someone to disprove the axiom of a "point being that which has position but no dimension."

there is a less rigorous definition of axioms as not necessarily a self-evident truth, but a logical "line in the sand" by which to make further claims. in this sense, we divide everything into logic or ethics, for example, and categorize everything according to our line in the sand.

the "line in the sand" notion is a weenie, lazy answer. we shall discard it.

furthermore, i have yet to see more than one view of Ti presented in this thread.

[Jonathan]

If you insist that we can't live without the subtypes, please explain why you think that they are indispensable.

That's a very worthwhile question. Some of the reasons are:
1) To account for the experience of knowing people who seem similar in some ways but different in others.
2) To help explain why some people may appear as two different types...for example, seem LII in some ways and ILI in other ways.
3) To reconcile the different schools of thought in Socionics
4) To show why different systems seem to work better for explaining certain people (i.e., my hypothesis is that Socionics descriptions tend to be more accurate for the accepting subtypes. MBTI descriptions seem to fit better for producing ones, at least for introverts. I know a lot of people here won't like that one. But I think there's really something to it.)

[Phaedrus]

1) To account for the experience of knowing people who seem similar in some ways but different in others.

But that is no argument against the two "working hypotheses".

2) To help explain why some people may appear as two different types...for example, seem LII in some ways and ILI in other ways.

Again I question the strenght of that argument. A counter argument could be that they appear as two different types because the type descriptions and/or our understanding of the functions are flawed.

3) To reconcile the different schools of thought in Socionics

Irrelevant. Why should we believe that every school of thought has some truth in it?

[Rocky]

MBTI descriptions seem to fit better for producing ones, at least for introverts. I know a lot of people here won't like that one. But I think there's really something to it.)

Believe it or not, but I agree.

Personally, I just think it has to do with some perceiving types having a a "stronger" judging side than a perceiving side, even though they float along mostly in perceiving mode (less analytical, etc...). This would explain why some MBTI INTPs think that their "judgment" is stronger than their perception, while others (most?) realize their perception is stronger (though it's clear that they are both Ni with Te, and no way Ti/Ne). Which is why "strength" shouldn't really be the determining factor for the order of the functions, but rather the use of the functions.

[tcaudilllg]

Because he's theories seem rather quack-ish.

For example, he claims that it is impossible to explain types by what goes on, "in the mind", because it's too difficult. If we weren't talking about the mind, then what's with this "Please Understand Me" stuff? If the types were as shallow as Kiersey pretends (if you area composer you're ISFP, or whatever it is), then wouldn't understanding people's differences already be blindingly easy... at face value?

Also, labeling Intuitives as Martians is wrong, because you can see many Intuitive types don't follow/believe in that path themselves.

And lastly, he makes a contradiction. He places two, specific, Introverted qualities under the heading of "Intuition", which would just lead more people to mistypings.

There are certainly more, but I won't continue now.


Basically, there are some people who understand psychology and Jungian functions, but have a rather poor understanding of humans. There are others who have a sharp understanding of people, but not of psychology. Kiersey, unfortunatly, understands neither.

I agree. Kiersey is a definite problem.

On the subtypes issue, who do you think is more likely to write a manifesto like Neitchze's "Beyond Good and Evil": Sycophant, or Cone...?

[Rocky]

I wouldn't know... but I'm assuming Sycophant is the judger and Cone is the perceiver.

[science as magic]

Huh?

Rationality is dead to most people. In its place we have set up a rationality with all of the problems of the original that is masked by vaguery in our terminology, the drunken stupor of forgetfulness, and the incessant buzzing of our prattling minds.

[Jonathan]

Phaedrus:

1) To account for the experience of knowing people who seem similar in some ways but different in others.

But that is no argument against the two "working hypotheses".

2) To help explain why some people may appear as two different types...for example, seem LII in some ways and ILI in other ways.

Again I question the strenght of that argument. A counter argument could be that they appear as two different types because the type descriptions and/or our understanding of the functions are flawed.

3) To reconcile the different schools of thought in Socionics

Irrelevant. Why should we believe that every school of thought has some truth in it?

Oh, because I responded to the end part of your quote; I didn't take you up on your challenge regarding the two working hypotheses.

There certainly is nothing logically wrong with the two working hypotheses; in fact, my earlier post was pointing towards the very idea of seeing the exact grouping you propose. However, my own observations suggest that the interior subdividing is necessary. Obviously, it would take a while to document those empirical observations.

Anyhow, it is perfectly reasonable to think that mistyping people may muddy the data; and I wouldn't give credence to opposing schools of thought except for the fact that both sides say things that match some of my own observations.

So, the short answer to your question of how one would go about refuting the two hypotheses is that one would need to pick examples that fit pretty well what appear to be the four subtypes in question, and then analyze the functions and their manifestations. As long as we have a few working examples, we can show that the concept has some validity in terms of relating to the real world.

The other approach, of course, is to build a system of further definitions by which one would derive the reason for the subtypes. I imagine that might not necessarily satisfiy you.

[Jonathan]

Rick: You probably meant Dmitri and Rick.

Here are some people here who I feel have clearly demonstrated thinking. There may be plenty others that I haven't 'interacted' with as closely, so this is only about my personal experience:

wym123 (http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...er=asc&start=0)
tcaudillg (samples everywhere)
Mariano Rajoy (there was a thread or two where he was in charge)

Yes, I did.
This is very interesting, actually. I think analyzing people's writing styles is a much underused technique. It's not perfect, but it contains a huge amount of useful information.

The one person I know who seems to fit the INTj descriptions by S..kaya and Dmitri would never be caught dead writing the way these people write (not that there's anything wrong with it; it's just that he's not that subjective). Maybe he's an ESTj or ENTj after all. [EDIT: Actually, I have to look at his writings again. Judging by other people's reactions, his communication style may be INTj after all.]

It seems that these people like to write their subjective thoughts, with very little concern for how other people react. They write a little bit like Jacques Lacan. The style of these people's writing is interesting to follow. You have to decode it a little bit, and then it reveals it's riches. I think my writing was once more like that, but I had to learn to write in a more straightforward manner for work. I'll have to try to dig up things I wrote when I was much younger to see if it sounds more and less , or if it was still .

[Phaedrus]

Some of you say things about David Keirsey like:

Because he's theories seem rather quack-ish.

and

Kiersey is a definite problem.

But when you dismiss his theory you just state your own opinion about him without giving us any good arguments. My long quote from Keirsey's site was meant to illustrate the differences between his approach and MBTI's and point to the similarities between Keirsey's approach and Socionics.
I think that I can understand why you say, Rocky, that Keirsey

claims that it is impossible to explain types by what goes on, "in the mind", because it's too difficult

but that is only an explanation of how he defines (identifies) the types, not how they actually are. And you say that

labeling Intuitives as Martians is wrong, because you can see many Intuitive types don't follow/believe in that path themselves

but that "labeling" is only a kind of "working tool" for Keirsey, because he agrees with you that not all Intuitives are "intuitive" in the same way, and that the "scales are not independent of each other" (read first paragraph in the long quote). And as for this one:

And lastly, he makes a contradiction. He places two, specific, Introverted qualities under the heading of "Intuition", which would just lead more people to mistypings.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Keirsey explains thoroughly in his book how he sees the differences between Intuition, Introversion, and the other scales, and why he thinks that Jung, and in his footsteps also Myers, confused introversion (I) with intuition (N) and extraversion (E) with sensation (S). I guess that you would agree with him more than with Myers.

The fact remains: When Keirsey describes the INTP Architect he is trying to describe the same type as the one in Socionics that is called ILI, or INTp, or the Critic. And when he describes the INTJ Mastermind he is trying to describe the same type as the one that in Socionics is called LII, or INTj, or the Analyst. We would see that they are the same types if we had them in front of us. By the V.I method we would put them in the same groups. By reading Keirsey's type descriptions we get a slightly different angle of how to view those two types, and a chance to a get better understanding of them (and maybe their respective subtypes).

I agree with you that Keirsey seems to make some serious mistypings, but that is another matter that is perhaps relevant for how we should view his practical typing skills, but is irrelevant for how we should view his theory.

[Phaedrus]

The other approach, of course, is to build a system of further definitions by which one would derive the reason for the subtypes. I imagine that might not necessarily satisfiy you.

Right.

[Jonathan]

I agree with you that Keirsey seems to make some serious mistypings, but that is another matter that is perhaps relevant for how we should view his practical typing skills, but is irrelevant for how we should view his theory.

The mistypings were my issue with him. I get the impression that he looks at people's careers and assumes a certain type. For example, he appears to overlook what I see as the obvious intuitive qualities of Woody Allen and types him as "iSTp" only because he thinks that people involved entertainment and the arts must be SP (artisans). And apart from the specific type of Woody Allen, there are many other examples.

I don't have any problem with his theory in and of itself. However, I think it's understandable if people evaluate a theory by what they see as its external manifestations; to look at his typings to see how thinks is similar to looking at Socionics writings, descriptions, etc., to see what Socionists think. It has its perils, but this is how these folks choose to express their ideas, so that's how they're evaluated by others.

I'm also not sure that it directly maps to Socionics 100%. His "iNTp" description seems to have some aspects of both Socionics INTp and INTj: http://keirsey.com/personality/ntip.html. Note his typing of Thomas Jefferson in that category, which Socionists use as a prime example of INTj.

His view of suggests a sort of fun-loving, playful activity, which I think may actually be quite accurate, but Socionics tends to emphasize more the controlling aspect. Consider the following description compared to the "Caesar" descriptions in Socionics: http://keirsey.com/personality/spef.html

[Phaedrus]

The mistypings were my issue with him. I get the impression that he looks at people's careers and assumes a certain type. For example, he appears to overlook what I see as the obvious intuitive qualities of Woody Allen and types him as "iSTp" only because he thinks that people involved entertainment and the arts must be SP (artisans). And apart from the specific type of Woody Allen, there are many other examples.

Yeah, but what does that prove? Over and over again we see socionists disagree on the types of famous people. (Just look at the differences in opinion between Lytov, Ganin, Rick, Expat ...) For example, was Ludwig Wittgenstein really an INTp as some socionists seem to firmly believe, or was he an INTj as Rick and I have stated? I'm not sure myself anymore. Keirsey has the same typing problems as the rest of us when we can't meet the person in real life. And what's even worse for him, Keirsey hasn't got access to the same typing methods as we do. With his rather primitive "method" he is almost bound to make some mistakes.

His "iNTp" description seems to have some aspects of both Socionics INTp and INTj

Which aspects do you have in mind?

[Rocky]

Some of you say things about David Keirsey like:

Because he's theories seem rather quack-ish.

and

Kiersey is a definite problem.

But when you dismiss his theory you just state your own opinion about him without giving us any good arguments.

There are plenty of good arguments against him. Basically, he only illustrates a shallow understanding of "type", and even admits it himself!

("What's the difference between Te and Ti? Duuuhhhhh... who knows? Not me! In fact, I don't even care, yet I'm still superior to all of you and you deserve to bow down to me!!!")

What baffles me is that some people think that someone has something good to say if they publish a book.

My long quote from Keirsey's site was meant to illustrate the differences between his approach and MBTI's and point to the similarities between Keirsey's approach and Socionics.

What similarities? Keirsey doesn't even have types, he only has occupational temperments or something like that.

I think that I can understand why you say, Rocky, that Keirsey

claims that it is impossible to explain types by what goes on, "in the mind", because it's too difficult

but that is only an explanation of how he defines (identifies) the types, not how they actually are.

So you would trust someone as credible who says things like that?

And you say that

labeling Intuitives as Martians is wrong, because you can see many Intuitive types don't follow/believe in that path themselves

but that "labeling" is only a kind of "working tool" for Keirsey, because he agrees with you that not all Intuitives are "intuitive" in the same way, and that the "scales are not independent of each other" (read first paragraph in the long quote).

If it's not true, then why put it in there?

And as for this one:

And lastly, he makes a contradiction. He places two, specific, Introverted qualities under the heading of "Intuition", which would just lead more people to mistypings.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Keirsey explains thoroughly in his book how he sees the differences between Intuition, Introversion, and the other scales, and why he thinks that Jung, and in his footsteps also Myers, confused introversion (I) with intuition (N) and extraversion (E) with sensation (S). I guess that you would agree with him more than with Myers.

Now, this is the part that is completely wrong. Introspection and seeing through "your own eyes" are definitive qualities of Introversion, not which perceiving function you prefer. Keirsey's the one who's confused, not Carl Jung. How dare he. If anyone believes this crap, then I have lost total respect for their opinions and it wouldn't be worth it to continue to give them any attention and reply to their posts.

[Rocky]

His view of suggests a sort of fun-loving, playful activity, which I think may actually be quite accurate, but Socionics tends to emphasize more the controlling aspect. Consider the following description compared to the "Caesar" descriptions in Socionics: http://keirsey.com/personality/spef.html

Not at all. Think of an ISFJ for example. ENTP is FAR MORE fun loving and playful than an ISFJ.

[Rocky]

Huh?

Rationality is dead to most people. In its place we have set up a rationality with all of the problems of the original that is masked by vaguery in our terminology, the drunken stupor of forgetfulness, and the incessant buzzing of our prattling minds.

Then maybe some Ti types should lighten up a bit.

Though I have also seen problems with extreme Extraverts, who don't take the time to slow down and understand things, and extreme perceivers, who don't take the effort to become consciously aware of things they should be.

[Jonathan]

Rocky: If anyone believes this crap, then I have lost total respect for their opinions and it wouldn't be worth it to continue to give them any attention and reply to their posts.

So, this is getting a little heated...

Phaedrus: Yeah, but what does that prove? Over and over again we see socionists disagree on the types of famous people.

I think if we step back, we'll see that we really agree on the fundamental issue, and these points about how good or not good Keirsey is really aren't the issue. That is to say, I don't have any have any problem with Keirsey; I just felt that his historical typings put too much emphasis on career, but it's not a big point. I don't feel passionately about disagreeing with him.

It seems to me that the whole reason Keirsey got mentioned was that I suggested that looking at the functions as motivations, rather than as skills, can help one understand the Socionics descriptions....and also help one find the more stable and fundamental aspects of a person's personality.

The way I look at it is, an NT type is likely to use both and a lot, as well as both and . Therefore, if we're trying to figure out if the person is INTj or INTp, it may make sense to look at motivations, and their repercussions.
...i.e., a person who seeks to order his/her environment around his or her own internal order is more likely INTj.
...a person who seeks to have an understanding and methods that reflect reality (hence, abandoing those understandings that don't reflect reality) so as to be prepared for future events is more likely INTp.

Not that those motivations are exclusive, either, but their weight is reflected in behaviors...and those may be more reliable than whether a person is using (or good at) the skills associated with the . So, if I'm not mistaken, that's why Keirsey came up in the first place, since he emphasizes looking at behavior from the global perspective.

[Jonathan]

The gray area, of course, is if a person uses and (the skills) a lot and has a fundamental motivation to always be open to new data, mirroring the INTp description. In that case, some people would type that person INTj intuitive subtype, and others would type that person INTp....and probably both types, in terms of intertype relationships, etc., would seem to fit at various times.

[Phaedrus]

What baffles me is that some people think that someone has something good to say if they publish a book.

Well, at least I'm not one of those people, and since you are familiar with the types, you also know that it is not in the nature of an INTp to think like that. I only trust myself as an arbiter of whether someone has something good to say or not.

Keirsey doesn't even have types, he only has occupational temperments or something like that.

That statement is clearly false, and if you read his book you will see why. Keirsey's four temperaments are groups of types that share some common features in thinking, behaving and general outlook. They can be compared with the quadras, even though they are based on different assumptions. And Keirsey is not the first one in history to suggest such groupings of people. I think Reuben McNew has claimed that the origin of Socionics can be traced back to Plato. That may be true or not, but at least Keirsey's names for the four temperament groups are taken from Plato, who, according to Keirsey, described four characters based on their roles in society: the Artisan (iconic), the Guardian (pistic), the Idealist (noetic) and the Rational (dianoetic).

So you would trust someone as credible who says things like that?

No. I trust my own judgment on where truth is to be found.

Introspection and seeing through "your own eyes" are definitive qualities of Introversion, not which perceiving function you prefer. Keirsey's the one who's confused, not Carl Jung.

This could easily turn into a fruitless debate over how we should define the words we use to describe the types, and that is not what this is about. Keirsey prefer to use the word Introspection instead of Intuition and the word Reserved instead of Introverted. He doesn't claim that they are defined in the exact same way, and he discusses the differences between himself, Jung and Myers in his book. But this is not a big issue for me, since my primary interest is the true nature of the real types, not which exact words we should use to describe them correctly.

Jonathan: I think if we step back, we'll see that we really agree on the fundamental issue, and these points about how good or not good Keirsey is really aren't the issue. That is to say, I don't have any have any problem with Keirsey; I just felt that his historical typings put too much emphasis on career, but it's not a big point.

I totally agree.

The way I look at it is, an NT type is likely to use both and a lot, as well as both and . Therefore, if we're trying to figure out if the person is INTj or INTp, it may make sense to look at motivations, and their repercussions.
...i.e., a person who seeks to order his/her environment around his or her own internal order is more likely INTj.
...a person who seeks to have an understanding and methods that reflect reality (hence, abandoing those understandings that don't reflect reality) so as to be prepared for future events is more likely INTp.

I agree that it makes sense to look at motivations and so on, and I think that it is a good idea not to disregard those aspects when typing someone. And what you say about INTjs and INTps is probably more or less true.

[Rocky]

Yet the true, psychological, definition of Introversion has nothing to do with being "reserved", and the perceiving function Intuition has nothing to do with "introspection". This is why I hate it. This is a concept that Kiersey doesn't seem to understand, and in refusing to do so, he is brings a lot of misconceptions about the 16 types.

You may say that it is a matter of opinion; however, that is not true. This is one thing that is a matter of right or wrong. How? Well, Carl Jung coined the word Introversion himself. This is why I say how dare Keirsey switch what Carl Jung called Introversion with Intuition, and what Carl Jung called Extraversion with Sensation. If we are to completely switch around terms, then there is no need to bother with the 16 types anymore, as they have no meaning. It would be like if I called a sock a house, and a house a sock; there would be no opinion or debate on the matter, and I would be dead wrong.

In this sense, Kiersey is wrong.

[Phaedrus]

Yet the true, psychological, definition of Introversion has nothing to do with being "reserved", and the perceiving function Intuition has nothing to do with "introspection".

There you go, even though I said it was fruitless. I don't necessarily disagree with you here. My point is that we should not debate which definition is more true or more correct than another, because that is a linguistic matter that has very little to do with the referents in the real world that those words are meant to stand for. I we understand what a person is trying to say, i.e what he or she means, then why get so upset about how that person uses or misuses some words by which he or she is trying to convey that meaning to you?

We could agree to use words like "introversion" and "intuition" in the Jungian sense, or in another sense that you prefer. But I hope we could also agree that when Keirsey (for maybe obscure and illegitimate reasons) uses other words instead of those, he still manages (roughly anyway) to single out and demarcate the same groups of people within his "types" as the groups that are demarcated in Socionics. If he doesn't manage that (or more accurately his theory and his type descriptions doesn't manage that), I think we should try to understand why and how his type groups differ from the Socionic type groups. How much do they overlap? Which persons belong to the same type group, and which persons belong to different groups? I myself, for example, belong to Keirsey's INTP Architect group and also to the Socionic ILI/INTp/Critic group. Some people seem to think that they are, for example, an INTP in the MBTI model but an INTj in Socionics, or, like Expat, an INTJ in MBTI but an ENTJ in Socionics. My working hypothesis is that all those who believe that they are different types in different models are mistaken about at least one of those types. And so far no one has been able to prove me wrong. I would be very glad if someone could do that convincingly, because then my understanding of the types would increase, and I could go on forming other working hypotheses.

[FDG]

Yet the true, psychological, definition of Introversion has nothing to do with being "reserved", and the perceiving function Intuition has nothing to do with "introspection".

There you go, even though I said it was fruitless. I don't necessarily disagree with you here. My point is that we should not debate which definition is more true or more correct than another, because that is a linguistic matter that has very little to do with the referents in the real world that those words are meant to stand for. I we understand what a person is trying to say, i.e what he or she means, then why get so upset about how that person uses or misuses some words by which he or she is trying to convey that meaning to you?

Because if the person misuses the words, the meaning conveyed is not equal for all the readers, and the readers will never be able to agree upon which meaning was REALLY the author trying to convey, which is exactly what is happening now.

About the second part of your post: the fact that there are people that are different types in different systems disproves the fact that you think that they have been mystyped in one of the system. Clearly, MBTI uses E/I N/S T/F P/J scales, so if somebody scores INTJ is INTJ. Socionics does not have a clear-cut way of determining type, therefore mistypings are possible.

Working hypotesis? Why the heck do you need to translate the types? It's absolutely pointless.

[Phaedrus]

Because if the person misuses the words, the meaning conveyed is not equal for all the readers, and the readers will never be able to agree upon which meaning was REALLY the author trying to convey, which is exactly what is happening now.

All we have to do to prevent that from happening is to look at the context in which the person uses the words and, more importantly, at how the person himself explains what he or she means by those words. As I said, Keirsey explains in his book how he uses those terms, so if we only are able to make a distinction between words and concepts no misunderstanding will occur.

the fact that there are people that are different types in different systems disproves the fact that you think that they have been mystyped in one of the system.

That is not a fact. What is a fact is that people believe that they are different types in different systems. And I still believe that they have mistyped themselves in at least one of the systems.

Clearly, MBTI uses E/I N/S T/F P/J scales, so if somebody scores INTJ is INTJ.

No. That is incorrect. You are not an INTJ by definition just because you score INTJ in a test. I used to do it myself in the beginning, and that can be explained by the fact that I had an incorrect view of myself and probably wanted to be more J than I actually am. The MBTI tests are only a method by which we can get an indication of someone's type. After taking the test we must go to the type descriptions and try to determine if the test result gave us the correct type or not. We should also use other sources of information about the types than just type descriptions, for example empirical findings about learning styles etc.

Socionics does not have a clear-cut way of determining type, therefore mistypings are possible.

Right. And the same goes for Myers-Briggs Type Theory and Keirsey's temperament theory. In all those systems mistypings are possible.

[Phaedrus]

Why the heck do you need to translate the types? It's absolutely pointless.

To find the truth.

[Expat]

No. That is incorrect. You are not an INTJ by definition just because you score INTJ in a test. I used to do it myself in the beginning, and that can be explained by the fact that I had an incorrect view of myself and probably wanted to be more J than I actually am. The MBTI tests are only a method by which we can get an indication of someone's type. After taking the test we must go to the type descriptions and try to determine if the test result gave us the correct type or not. We should also use other sources of information about the types than just type descriptions, for example empirical findings about learning styles etc.

I think a lot of MBTI enthusiasts do follow the test scores as the type definition, but I'll leave that aside as you obviously think they are wrong.

I agree that MBTI and socionics broadly try to describe the same kind of people in their types. The key word is broadly. The criteria for Extroversion/Introversion and Judging/Perceiving are different. MBTI may also use definitions of Extroversion involving where your source of information is focused, etc, but most profiles and books based on MBTI do make a strong association between extroversion and socially outgoing on a superficial level, or "not afraid to approach strangers", etc. If that is an incorrect version of MBTI, is also one which is very widespread.

Likewise, the Judging/Perceiving criteria in MBTI, whether in profiles or tests, lumps together as "Judging" things like keeping your desk and your car tidy, and organizing your daily routine as well as your longer-term plans.

Therefore, without any real mistyping, just by following the different criteria, there will be quite a few people who will be one type in MBTI and another in socionics.

In fact, from what I have read in the forum, it is clear to me that a lot of the people typed as "ESFjs" by forum posters are probably socionics ESFps who are organized in their daily routine and keep their environment tidy, and therefore were typed as ESFj. They may well be ESFJ in MBTI, but socionics ESFp.

The two systems have huge overlaps, but also differences. Therefore to say that you have necessarily to be the "same" type in both systems, otherwise you have made a mistyping, is to pursue a shadow.

[Phaedrus]

I think a lot of MBTI enthusiasts do follow the test scores as the type definition, but I'll leave that aside as you obviously think they are wrong.

I don't mind leaving this aside, but I don't understand where people have got that idea from. Almost all books and articles I have read about MBTI and the real life MBTI practitioners I have met agree that the test result is only a hypothesis. You have to make a follow-up.

I agree that MBTI and socionics broadly try to describe the same kind of people in their types.

I'm glad that we can agree on that, and that more than one socionist (even SG) are willing to admit it. Then we have something to work on.

The criteria for Extroversion/Introversion and Judging/Perceiving are different.

I'm not going to dispute that, but I don't find them very different.

Therefore, without any real mistyping, just by following the different criteria, there will be quite a few people who will be one type in MBTI and another in socionics.

Yes, that's possible. But we all know that the criteria are not extremely well defined, and they have to be interpreted and compared with reality, which also has to be interpreted. That it is possible to make mistakes in this process should come as no surprise. My point is that the criteria in themselves are not enough to determine the correct type. You have to look at the type descriptions. Why do we have to do that? Because our understanding of the types is based on the assumption that you are the type that you are, even though you might not know it. You can't change you type at will. The criteria can be different without the types and their descriptions be different. The type descriptions are not identical, of course, but, in my opinion, they are not so different that it is (yet) warranted to conclude that they are descriptions of different types. It is still an open question.

In fact, from what I have read in the forum, it is clear to me that a lot of the people typed as "ESFjs" by forum posters are probably socionics ESFps who are organized in their daily routine and keep their environment tidy, and therefore were typed as ESFj.

That is quite possible.

They may well be ESFJ in MBTI, but socionics ESFp.

But that conclusion doesn't follow logically, and I doubt that it is true. If we have reason to believe that we have typed them correctly using the socionic methods, we have reason to believe that they are also ESFPs in the MBTI model. I think many MBTI practitioners would agree that the MBTI tests give incorrect results in about 25 % of the cases.

The two systems have huge overlaps, but also differences. Therefore to say that you have necessarily to be the "same" type in both systems, otherwise you have made a mistyping, is to pursue a shadow.

I'm not claiming that you necessarily have to be the same type, but it seems more likely than not that you are.

Jonathan has raised the question of the importance of different motivations among the types. One thing often mentioned about the INTP type in the MBTI and Keirsey descriptions is that a (if not the) central motivation of an INTP is to understand and seek truth. I know that it is right to the point in my own case, but that "key" to understand the INTP personality is not accentuated to the same degree in the socionic descriptions I have read. Why is that?

One hypothesis is that the socionists who have written the type descriptions have missed that part of the INTp personality or not realized its importance. In that case we could make the type descriptions better by including it.

Another hypothesis is that models are not describing the same type, or that MBTI and Keirsey are describing a subtype of INTp, or that one or two or all of the models are describing that type (and probably also other types) in a way that is not yet perfect. Whatever the truth is here, I think it is both worthwile and interesting to compare the type descriptions in the different models.

[tcaudilllg]

The question I ask is, which theory is more empirical? Progress is made by discarding less empirical theories in favor of theories that better match reality. Keirsey's organization is out there spreading his incomplete notions all over the place without bothering to refine them further. (otherwise they would be seen as lacking authority) It reminds me of Freud determining that his sexual theory was the end-all be-all of psychology, and trying to make it fit every single psychological concept however haphazardly, just so he could in his own words, "make an unbreakable bulwark" against the authorities who preceded him.

People like stability. It's too bad that experts feel they must defend their own incomplete understandings of everything against the better understandings that precede them. We all pay the price for it, don't we?

I wouldn't have a problem with Keirsey if they tried bridging the gap between their perspective and socionics, but I don't see them trying.

[Phaedrus]

The question I ask is, which theory is more empirical?

That is a tricky question. Socionics seems to have made more empirical studies in several areas, and the socionic theory is, of course, more developed than both Keirsey's or MBTT. But the MBTI descriptions are probably based on more empirical raw data than the socionic descriptions. The main problem with MBTT is that the theory seems to be flawed.

Keirsey's theory is more difficult to judge. It doesn't contain the same theoretical mistakes as MBTT, and one of the reasons for that is that it is not based on the assumption of the existence of functions. To what degree it is empirical I'm not sure, but we should note the fact that his type descriptions are not that far from the MBTI descriptions, at least they seem to be compatible, and we know that the latter ones are based on millions of test results and other empirical findings. The function analyses in the MBTI descriptions are mistaken, but even there the descriptions of the functions seem to have been influenced by the empirical findings. As I have said before, the MBTI descriptions of, for example, introverted thinking (Ti) seem to have changed significantly from Jung's description in Psychological Types, and is nowadays more in tune with how INTPs like myself actually think. So, if you read descriptions of Ti you will probably see more of than of in them.

I wouldn't have a problem with Keirsey if they tried bridging the gap between their perspective and socionics, but I don't see them trying.

Neither do I. Luckily socionists are so much better in that respect ...

[Jonathan]

I have seen him typed as all of the four extraverted feeling types. Yet I am 100% confident that his socionics type is INTP - or I have go my own type wrong. And that cannot be - although I do not really expect you to believe me either. But what is going on? I do not know, but typing people just by trying to fit them into socionics type descriptions works better in some cases than in others.

It's not that unusual to find that duals look alike in some ways. I think that one way of thinking about the dual relationship is that the dual is how you imagine yourself being in a certain imaginary circumstance...except that the dual is the real-life realization of that imagination.

In addition, it's always possible for people to develop their dual functions. Hence, is Clinton could be an INTp who has developed his outgoing "people" side, and he could also be an ESFp who has developed his analytical INTp side (assuming he's either INTp or ESFp, that is).

[Dioklecian]

[
On the subtypes issue, who do you think is more likely to write a manifesto like Neitchze's "Beyond Good and Evil": Sycophant, or Cone...?

Freaking brilliant

Jung types Nietzsche as Ti dominant by the way, is he wrong?

[Phaedrus]

Jung types Nietzsche as Ti dominant by the way, is he wrong?

My guess is that he is right about that. I think I have seen at least one person on this forum claim that Nietzsche was an INTp, but that does neither fit my overall impression of Nietzsche's personality, nor my general hypothesis about two types of philosophers, representing two fundamentally different kinds of philosophical thinking.

Nietzsche seems to be a clear representative of the school emanating from the sophists, which we nowadays can se expressions of among several French philosophers and others in the continental tradition, and also among other post modernists, such as Richard Rorty and others in the American pragmatist tradition. The sophists, or the relativists, or the subjectivists (the things we love have many names ...) represent an INTj kind of thinking in my opinon, and, from what I have read about Nietzsche and his life, I find it not unlikely that he could have been an INTj.

Those who think (if there still are any) that Nietzsche is a clear example of an INTp probably have a fundamentally incorrect conception of the natures of the INTp and the INTj types and their differences.

[FDG]

If Nietzsche has to be a Ti domninant, then it's clear that he was ISTj.

[Expat]

If Nietzsche has to be a Ti domninant, then it's clear that he was ISTj.

Yes, his philosophy does seem Beta, doesn't it?

[Phaedrus]

If Nietzsche has to be a Ti domninant, then it's clear that he was ISTj.

Yes, his philosophy does seem Beta, doesn't it?

Arguments and explanations, please.

[NekoBus]

If Nietzsche has to be a Ti domninant, then it's clear that he was ISTj.

How many sensing philosphers are there in total, banning "life" philosophy like epicurianism? Nietzsche's was the ultimate existential free spirit philosophy of his time. Alpha is the free spirit quadra. It is clear to me that Nietsche was INTj.

[NekoBus]

Yes, his philosophy does seem Beta, doesn't it?

I can see those familiar only with the popularized Nietzsche making this association. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", Nazi appropriation, etc.