Oh no look
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/b...-test-bullshit
https://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-ha...iggs-nonsense/
No such thing as 16 types? Jung didn’t think personality types were fixed?
OH NO
Oh no look
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/b...-test-bullshit
https://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-ha...iggs-nonsense/
No such thing as 16 types? Jung didn’t think personality types were fixed?
OH NO
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Never, ever listen to a guy named Luke Winkie.Originally Posted by golden
He researched his article by looking at Tinder profiles.
I hesitate to speculate on how he came up with his byline name.
@golden, what were you thinking?
Last edited by Adam Strange; 06-25-2018 at 04:23 AM.
That if even trashy little listicles snd clickbait can manage to cover some of the meaningful criticisms showing why 16 specific personality types is not a realistic proposition, I am wasting my time (again).
That’s what I was thinking.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Just because he has criticisms of the theory, it doesn't mean he's right. Or that the theory is wrong.
As for there being no "predictive power" behind MBTI, that may be true to some extent, but the predictive power behind Socionics is better established, at least in my own mind.
I had an ILE city inspector repeatedly find faults with my rental property at $100/visit, and he and I did not hit it off well, although we weren't overt about it. I decided to hire an LSE (his benefactor) to walk him through the property and he signed off on everything. So I'd say that socionics has some value.
I’m not concerned with these particular authors having criticisms. I linked to them for fun, although the underlying issues are real.
These and many other articles and discussions—from material in peer-reviewed journals, to discussions by people knowledgeable in psychometrics, to mainstream infotainment that piggybacks on the more substantive work—all discuss similar problems.
What I have said for years is that most personality type theories are overdeterministic. Socionics and MBTI are trying to do too much. The things the theories observe include actual traits (though these are not always easily distinguished from states, and I’m not sure that all the characteristics that get tied together should be bundled). We do know that these traits show normal distribution, clustering in the middle. This means that the hard lines a 16-type theory lays down are drawn across the messy, blurry, crowded gray zones where most people actually exist. Only a small number of people will neatly fit into the boxes. And a greater number of people will not fit neatly. So ...
* people do not agree
* people do not agree on how to type others
* people do not agree with people’s self-typings
* people do not agree on how to define the types
* people do not agree on their own self-type, meaning they change it or never settle on it to begin with
* self-report tests do not agree with themselves, as people retest with different results
And so on.
If we understand that so much of what has been drawn as hard boxes simply cannot be that neat and simple, if we understand that typology is usually in the realm of -ishness (I am EIE-ish, you are LIE-ish), we are coming closer to reality. But in the case of Socionics in particular, if people were content with -ish regarding their own types, they would have to accept that intertype relations become even more -ishy. The main thrust of the IR part of the theory is prediction of what will happen between people. The less exact and the more complex the interpersonal scenario begins, the less predictable it becomes, simply by introducing more variables and more room for error.
Last edited by golden; 06-25-2018 at 03:04 PM.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I think this is a very good point @golden. I've always considered typology like this--'ishy' as you put it. Definitely there are some cliche SEI characteristics I do not fit (for one, I feel like I'm pretty capable of filling my life with Ne stimulation on my own, although I still love it most when a ILE or IEE helps by giving it to me). And I don't let the typology system stop me from making friends with 'incompatible' types. However, almost like clockwork, I have found that if I get too close to those types, they always seem to play out like the Socionics descriptions (and it takes more and more energy out of me to prevent that relational discord, the closer we get).
Before I discovered Socionics, I was having these intertype relations already...I typed them using MBTI, and then later on I read about what kind of relationship was typical of these types with my type (in the socionics system), and it was spot on. For instance, this happened with two SEEs, two LIEs, two SLEs, one ESI, one ILE, one ESE, one EII, one LSE, one LSI...the list is even longer than this o_o And after I discovered Socionics, I've continued to have more relationships that fit the Socionics descriptions. It just keeps on happening.
So to sum up, based on my personal experience at least, these intertype relationship descriptions do play out accurately when you're in a close friendship, familial relationship, or romantic relationship. But of course, there's also many other factors involved. I can get along with a conflictor who shares similar interests and opinions with me a lot more easily than I can with one who doesn't, lol xD And I can hardly get along with a dual who has completely opposite opinions and interests from mine, at all...although I still feel really comforted/relaxed when we work together on a project, and I can tell we understand each other more easily than most--Speaking of one ILE I know. I don't enjoy talking to him all that much, but I still feel that sort of dualizing synergy when working together with him on something >.>
Btw, I think most of the online tests for these systems are fairly useless. I take them and score as an intuitive and/or a thinker all the time, because I do spend so much energy and time trying to use those functions (in the past, especially. it's really necessary to use every information element at least semi-decently, unless you have other people around who will do it for you, I suppose). So it took me a long time to figure out my type, at first.
Reply With Quote
