Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 57 of 57

Thread: J/P dimension is primary?

  1. #41
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    And we should not only use MBTI as a source of information, but also the Enneagram and other models. They are probably false theories, but they still contain a lot of true statements.
    I agree. Jungian systems only measure specific dimensions, other systems measure other interesting dimensions of personality. I think the Neuroticism scale of the BIg 5 could be an interesting addition to Socionics. Also, I think gender has both biological and cultural aspects that could clear up some issues in MBTI and Socionics, but this is to be included in theory, the phenomenon is already measured by T/F at large, I think.

    I don't like Enneagram, although I do like the fact that they are not afraid of taking Type to neurotic levels, because I hate the political correctness of MBTI.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To some extent the descriptions are different, but the problem still remains that the attitudes are still different in types. E.g. for ISTp and ISTP, sensing is introverted and extraverted respectively, meaning that sensing is directed inwards for the ISTp and outwards for the ISTP.
    No. That is clearly false. Their respective functions are directed in the exact same way, because an ISTp is the same empirical object as an ISTP. The only difference between an ISTp and an ISTP is that the descriptions of them differ in which words are used. In MBTI they use the words "introverted thinking" or "Ti" and "extraverted sensing" or "Se" to describe the ISTP. In Socionics we use the words "introverted sensing" or " " and "extraverted thinking" or " " to describe the same type. It is absolutely untrue that = Si and = Se

    Now that is, almost by definition, a contradiction in terms from a Jungian perspective, if the descriptions of these two types are so similar (and the often incorrectly applied switch of J/P doesn't apply, since ISTp descriptions don't match ISTJ descriptions).
    Yes, it is a contradiction. But only if we think that they mean the same thing when they use the same word. And you are right. The J/P switch never applies.

    And this problem cannot easily be rationalized away by pointing out to different wording of functions, unless MBTI-introverted means Socionics-extraverted and vice versa, which would be totally crazy!
    It can be rationalized away if we focus on the types instead of the functions. (Oh, holy sh ...! I said it again ...)

    I suspect many of the views and examples of the Tiegers are not the result of observations, but theoretical constructs (presented as observations).
    Yes, probably. And the same could probly be said of some views and examples used in Socionics.

  3. #43
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    No. That is clearly false. Their respective functions are directed in the exact same way, because an ISTp is the same empirical object as an ISTP. The only difference between an ISTp and an ISTP is that the descriptions of them differ in which words are used. In MBTI they use the words "introverted thinking" or "Ti" and "extraverted sensing" or "Se" to describe the ISTP. In Socionics we use the words "introverted sensing" or " " and "extraverted thinking" or " " to describe the same type. It is absolutely untrue that = Si and = Se
    This sounds like a statement, not an explanation. I can see that != Si and != Se, but what I'm saying, is that the fundamental problem between Socionics and MBTI for introverted types boils down to i = e. Forget about the functions, look at the attitude! Now if I'm wrong please correct me, but how can be it that "Their respective functions are directed in the exact same way" and that sensing is directed introverted for the ISTp and extraverted for the ISTP IN THEORY? This is a contradiction. If it is not, please explain, but do more than just make a statement. Unless you want to get rid of functions altogether :wink:
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  4. #44
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was just thinking, perhaps we should take a more model-approach, very much like the atom can be descibed using the models of Rutherford and Bohr. Rutherford's suffices for a lot of situations, for some more complex ones we need to refer to the more complex model of Bohr.

    That way, we would use the Socionic model as "a model", i.e. something we can use to explain the workings of reality, but does not have to reflect reality "as it is". We can keep our Socionic model as an abstraction, don't worry if the functions really exist, and dispence of MBTI functions alltogether, since their functions (and the theory) get stuck pretty fast

    Let's face it: for the average 13th-century person, the concept that the Earth was flat worked pretty well, and there was no reason why he had a need of knowing the world was in fact a globe! :wink:
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  5. #45
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    For example, the basis of the intertype relationships, etc., is all due to hypotheses based on the functions, plus anecdotal testing of those hypotheses.
    Really? I have always thought that the intertype relations were based on empirical observations.
    You are right and Jonathan's wrong. If you read any text on the history of Socionics, you will see that it started from empirical observations of intertype relationships. That is one very big difference between Socionics and MBTI, and why functions and quadras are central to the former.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    The whole interesting thing about Socionics is that it suggests an alternate way of defining the functions (and explaining J- and P-like behavior) compared to MBTI, and that it involves this theory of intertype relations. Take that away, and there's just not much left there.
    As I said above, relationships are central to Socionics, unlike in MBTI where they are (at most) an afterthought.

    And that is why Socionics needs the functions - they are the model to explain relationships. Functions are essential to Socionics.

    MBTI mentions functions again as an afterthought, a way to connect to Jung's work, perhaps, but they are not really necessary in any way to understand MBTI's types - these are much more strongly based on descriptions of the types themselves and on the E/I, N/S, T/F, J/P dichotomies.

    That is why I think that looking too closely at MBTI's functions will get you nowhere -- they are not necessary for MBTI.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    The intertype relations could perhaps be explained in some other way than with reference to functions, or our understanding of the functions is incomplete or faulty.
    Of course they could, and surely our - and everyone's - understanding of the functions is incomplete and faulty. But functions are a theoretical model trying to explain what has - as you mentioned - been observed empirically.

    If you can provide "some other way" to explain intertype relationships, and that works better than Socionics, I will drop Socionics immediatly and for for the "some other way".

    Again, I do not think that functions necessarily "exist" in any physical way -- they are part of a theoretical model, which is at least partly confirmed by evidence. The fact that it does not always work well suggests that it's flawed, but then we need to come up with improvements and/or alternative models. Which is where Socionics is stuck right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    In MBTI we have the same temperaments groups as those proposed by Keirsey, i.e. SPs, SJs, NFs and NTs. At least the two N-groups are the same as in Socionics. And we can group the types in different ways for different purposes. For example, if we look at how people want information to be presented to them, MBTI proposes these groups: STs, SFs, NFs and NTs.
    Yes but not exactly.

    Keirsey focuses on SP, SJ, NF and NT, and MBTI on ST, SF, NF and NT.

    Socionics also deals with the latter, calling them "clubs" and indeed they relate to the type of information they prefer, and we also know, empirically, that there are some characteristics that are common to members of each club.

    I don't think Socionics concerns itself too much with Sp and Sj groups but, again, we all know that they share some common characteristics which, however, are not central to socionics.

    Much more central to Socionics - because far more important to intertype relationships - are the Quadras, precisely because they are based on functional preferences or "Quadra Values". From Keirsey's or MBTI's points of view, though, it makes no sense at all to put ISFP in the same Quadra as INTJ rather than with ESFP - precisely because they don't care about relationships except at a very crude level.

    Gulenko has proposed an alternative way of looking at relationships by combining the Socionics temperaments - EJ, IJ, IP and EP - with the Clubs - SF, ST, NT and NF - which works up to a point, and that would be consistent with MBTI perhaps, but as far as I know they haven't tried even that approach.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  6. #46
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another reason why I think Socionics is better than MBTI. For the ENFp the PoLR is Ti, in MBTI the inferior function, the one you use the least, is introverted sensing. Now look at this:

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult
    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    I think with the POLR, people don't care if they win or loose a battle in that realm, and by not accepting a win or using its status, it implies the non existance of that realm. If I am stronger than someone or look better, and I hide my strengths or deny my abilities, others will be upset with this because it demeans their membership in that competition/ranking system. If they took pride in having a high rank in that realm, and I am saying that realm isn't real they won't be too happy. On the other hand, what does it mean, if you ignore the POLR's existance but then desire its benefits or protection?
    Dead on! I've never been able to explain why I wasn't good at card and strategy games. I never even learned how to play chess. I always said that I'm not inclined to think 6 moves ahead to try and beat someone at chess, what would be the good in that? If someone wants me to learn chess and win a game, they need to put a gun against my head in order to give me an incentive and get "motivated".

    The reality is, that Ti is my PoLR :wink:
    Perhaps this proves shit...
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now if I'm wrong please correct me, but how can be it that "Their respective functions are directed in the exact same way" and that sensing is directed introverted for the ISTp and extraverted for the ISTP IN THEORY? This is a contradiction.
    In theory they are not directed in the same way. But that was not what I said. I said that "their respective functions are directed in the exact same way". They have to be since we are talking about the same type. Functions (if they exist) are real, they are not theoretical constructs. The concepts, and their meaning in different contexts, are of course theoretical constructs. But I am not talking about concepts and words, I am talking about types and functions, which are parts of the world, not parts of our language.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult
    I "know" I'm ENFp, but sometimes exhibit strong introvert behaviors. I think this has to do with the kind of people I surround myself with. I've been surrounded a lot in my life by S-type with a 100- IQ (no offense intended), which caused me to withdraw.
    MORON, 100 is the average, so if S averages 100, then N must also average 100.
    Incorrect. You imply a 50/50 split with compensating values, which is absolutely unlikely :S.
    I'm not going to argue for any side, but think about it: suppose that Ns (or Ss, for that matter) have all an iq of 120 and Ss (or Ns) have all al iq of 80. Suppose also a 50 50 split to render things easy. The average would still be 100 but the averages of the groups would respectively be 80 and 120.
    I know that, but if one is 100 even, then the other can't be that far off (unless you think one is about .000001% of the population of someting ).
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  9. #49
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Now if I'm wrong please correct me, but how can be it that "Their respective functions are directed in the exact same way" and that sensing is directed introverted for the ISTp and extraverted for the ISTP IN THEORY? This is a contradiction.
    In theory they are not directed in the same way. But that was not what I said. I said that "their respective functions are directed in the exact same way". They have to be since we are talking about the same type. Functions (if they exist) are real, they are not theoretical constructs. The concepts, and their meaning in different contexts, are of course theoretical constructs. But I am not talking about concepts and words, I am talking about types and functions, which are parts of the world, not parts of our language.
    Cool! You say "Functions if they exist are real" Very interesting statement, and it puts all other things you said in a much clearer light. I need to think about it, it goes beyond what I, as an NF, can grasp, but hey, Stephen Hawkins thinks the Universe was created out of absolutely nothing, and who am I to argue with him?
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  10. #50
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,806
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult
    I "know" I'm ENFp, but sometimes exhibit strong introvert behaviors. I think this has to do with the kind of people I surround myself with. I've been surrounded a lot in my life by S-type with a 100- IQ (no offense intended), which caused me to withdraw.
    MORON, 100 is the average, so if S averages 100, then N must also average 100.
    Incorrect. You imply a 50/50 split with compensating values, which is absolutely unlikely :S.
    I'm not going to argue for any side, but think about it: suppose that Ns (or Ss, for that matter) have all an iq of 120 and Ss (or Ns) have all al iq of 80. Suppose also a 50 50 split to render things easy. The average would still be 100 but the averages of the groups would respectively be 80 and 120.
    I know that, but if one is 100 even, then the other can't be that far off (unless you think one is about .000001% of the population of someting ).
    Ah yeah. I didn't really think that she implied that 100 as a mean were in any way related to S. Just that her life's been full of people that 1)had lower I.Q. 2)were sensors, not correlated.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  11. #51
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Ah yeah. I didn't really think that she implied that 100 as a mean were in any way related to S. Just that her life's been full of people that 1)had lower I.Q. 2)were sensors, not correlated.
    I know, all tests that measure it say I have high anima :wink:
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  12. #52

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult
    I repeat: I have never said in the post that Rocky refers to that there is a relationship between S/N and IQ, not even where the middle is in IQ for these two types.
    Yes, you did, both in the first post, and in the reply to my post afterwords, and I bet you'll do it again...

    My point was, that I have an 135 IQ (today)
    I have instantly lost any respect for IQ tests that I previously had.

    (my real dead is INTj, and that is also where I got the IQ from),
    (yup, like I said, you did it again... I think your goal from now on is to NOT look like contradictary idiot who's trying to masturbate himself to feel better for his shortcomings.)

    The S thing and the IQ thing are two seperate things and no connection between the two was intented. I still don't see that I wrote it in such a way that there was a relationship, but if you got the impression that there was, I aplogize for the fact that Rocky failed to create the right type of forest out of the trees. I should have forseen that!
    I don't know why your appologizing for that. Just admit your intentions and be done with it. If it wasn't "intended", then your post would never have mentioned IQ in the first place, and you wouldn't keep on saying there is a connection... then saying there isn't... you said it STRAIGHT out that there was one (in addition to implying it), now you're saying that there isn't? Again, this sounds manipulative if anything. Either that or you just can't keep a consistent line of thought, which is an indication of stupidity.

    In case you forgot, these are some things you said, which go back and contradict the other things;

    I've been surrounded a lot in my life by S-type with a 100- IQ
    Where does it say that I claim that there is a relationship between S types and IQ? (actually, there is a correlation,
    I have never said in the post that Rocky refers to that there is a relationship between S/N and IQ,
    (my real dead is INTj, and that is also where I got the IQ from)
    The S thing and the IQ thing are two seperate things and no connection between the two was intented
    there is a correlation between S/N and IQ in that IQ tests are N-biased.

    This is a joke. You have to at least make up your mind first before you argue something or pretend like you know something.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  13. #53
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult
    I repeat: I have never said in the post that Rocky refers to that there is a relationship between S/N and IQ, not even where the middle is in IQ for these two types.
    Yes, you did, both in the first post, and in the reply to my post afterwords, and I bet you'll do it again...

    My point was, that I have an 135 IQ (today)
    I have instantly lost any respect for IQ tests that I previously had.

    (my real dead is INTj, and that is also where I got the IQ from),
    (yup, like I said, you did it again... I think your goal from now on is to NOT look like contradictary idiot who's trying to masturbate himself to feel better for his shortcomings.)

    The S thing and the IQ thing are two seperate things and no connection between the two was intented. I still don't see that I wrote it in such a way that there was a relationship, but if you got the impression that there was, I aplogize for the fact that Rocky failed to create the right type of forest out of the trees. I should have forseen that!
    I don't know why your appologizing for that. Just admit your intentions and be done with it. If it wasn't "intended", then your post would never have mentioned IQ in the first place, and you wouldn't keep on saying there is a connection... then saying there isn't... you said it STRAIGHT out that there was one (in addition to implying it), now you're saying that there isn't? Again, this sounds manipulative if anything. Either that or you just can't keep a consistent line of thought, which is an indication of stupidity.

    In case you forgot, these are some things you said, which go back and contradict the other things;

    I've been surrounded a lot in my life by S-type with a 100- IQ
    Where does it say that I claim that there is a relationship between S types and IQ? (actually, there is a correlation,
    I have never said in the post that Rocky refers to that there is a relationship between S/N and IQ,
    (my real dead is INTj, and that is also where I got the IQ from)
    The S thing and the IQ thing are two seperate things and no connection between the two was intented
    there is a correlation between S/N and IQ in that IQ tests are N-biased.

    This is a joke. You have to at least make up your mind first before you argue something or pretend like you know something.
    I love you too!
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Functions (if they exist) are real, they are not theoretical constructs.
    Not sure I see these as mutually exclusive. Technically, functions are theoretical constructs by definition. Any label, model, or system we use to explain something is a theoretical construct. The intent is that the model mirrors the reality. I agree that if the model is any good, it must mirror reality, but you'll surely have to agree that that doesn't make the model the same as the reality.

    Actually, I think this was a key point that Plato kept bringing up....that we only directly perceive the world of concepts, ideas, and not objects themselves. To Plato, concepts are in a sense more "real" than objects; whether or not this is so, it's important for clear thinking to have that separation.

    As to the nature of the functions in the various models, I think that understanding how they might work, or how one could make the whole model work, is really the interesting part of this whole thing.

    Earlier, I thought that and were radically, radically different from "introverted thinking" and "extraverted intuition" in MBTI and Jung's writings. However, the more I've read and discussed this, the more I think the distinctions are more subtle. The way people describe the functions in the systems is, in fact, often not as radically different in the two systems as I earlier supposed, although I know one can find some exceptions where someone wrote a passage that describes, say, one function in one system that sounds sort of like another function in the other.

    But I think that actually the major differences between the systems have more to do with the effect on personality and behavior that the systems attribute to functions. And of course, within Socionics itself, the understanding of what that effect is differs among the different "schools" of Socionics.

  15. #55
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Actually, I think this was a key point that Plato kept bringing up....that we only directly perceive the world of concepts, ideas, and not objects themselves. To Plato, concepts are in a sense more "real" than objects; whether or not this is so, it's important for clear thinking to have that separation.
    This was very much what I felt when I read your previous post : Platonic type of reasoning. We also see this in Existentialism: Nothing Noughts. It is what it is, that is, it is what it is not, that is, it is not what it is, that is, it is not what it is not.

    Now although I can see creative applications for Plato's view, it's not my kind of reasoning and I think I'll stick with a more Aristotelian way of trying to describe reality. We probably are not going to meet halfway philosphically (no offense intended).
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  16. #56
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rocky and consentingadult,

    Please exchange further personal insults over PM or I'll kick you.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  17. #57

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not sure I see these as mutually exclusive. Technically, functions are theoretical constructs by definition. Any label, model, or system we use to explain something is a theoretical construct.
    They are not mutually exclusive. We clearly agree here (as usual). My point is that functions are not only theoretical constructs. To mention that they are theoretical constructs is almost always irrelevant and trivial and often misleading, since it might lead one to think that because they are theoretical constructs they have nothing to do with objective reality.

    The intent is that the model mirrors the reality. I agree that if the model is any good, it must mirror reality, but you'll surely have to agree that that doesn't make the model the same as the reality.
    Yes. Every correct or true model must mirror reality (= correspond with how the world really is). And of course I'm not saying that the model is the same as the reality. On the contrary I have repeatedly warned others (on this forum) to make that mistake (which seems to be possible to make if one refuses to see the distinctions between words and concepts, and between concepts and their referents).

    Actually, I think this was a key point that Plato kept bringing up....that we only directly perceive the world of concepts, ideas, and not objects themselves. To Plato, concepts are in a sense more "real" than objects; whether or not this is so, it's important for clear thinking to have that separation.
    Maybe one could put it that way. But Plato was wrong about objects. Both concepts (ideas) and objects are real.

    Earlier, I thought that and were radically, radically different from "introverted thinking" and "extraverted intuition" in MBTI and Jung's writings. However, the more I've read and discussed this, the more I think the distinctions are more subtle. The way people describe the functions in the systems is, in fact, often not as radically different in the two systems as I earlier supposed, although I know one can find some exceptions where someone wrote a passage that describes, say, one function in one system that sounds sort of like another function in the other.
    You are right about that too. But when we take a look at how theorists use the functions to describe the actual thought processes of the types, then we find more differences. That is inevitable because they are trying to describe the same phenomenon using clearly different concepts, which are not compatible to begin with. So, to mirror reality (= the way the real types actually think) they have to re-define, or rather understand concepts (while keeping the definitions more or less intact) like "introverted thinking" in another way than Jung did.

    One example of that is Lenore Thomson's understanding of "introverted thinking" (Ti) as a kind of holistic, right-brain process instead of how it is understood in Socionics as a left-brain, more analytical, process. Why is that? Because most (if not all) INTPs/INTps are probably right-brain dominant, and think in a more holistic, "synthetic" way than INTjs.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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