Rocky you forget the time element, all statements have a time component, as time moves forth, so does everything, including opinions. Some opinions stand the test of time, others don't.Originally Posted by Rocky
Rocky you forget the time element, all statements have a time component, as time moves forth, so does everything, including opinions. Some opinions stand the test of time, others don't.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
What are you talking about? You haven't even considered my theory seriously, have you? If you had, you clearly wouldn't be arguing with me now. You said "Jung isn't ENFp." ENFp-XNFx is -not- ENFp, but rather an ENFp with INFj traits. An INFj inside of an ENFp, type-wise.So?
1) Who said Jung was INFJ? We were talking about Ti.
2) Even if he were, how can you be sure everyone types themselves correctly?
It's all circular.
Oh, I see, still, just because INFJs don't understand him doesn't mean that he was suddenly an "ENFP-xNFx" or whatever. "Not understanding" is a very poor method of typing. Arguably *any* type that is different is hard to understand (and totally disregarding my second point).
Could you explain that Expat?People say that now and then. But is there evidence that he only saw the types in his patients - not all of which were really "mentally ill"?
@tcaudilllg: I don't think it's a good idea to make Socionics a household world and teach it in high schools.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
I've always been inclined to believe Jung was an ILI. He seems to have a fluid, description-based style and never appeared dogmatic or categorical. He is known for his emphasis on the soul, unconscious, dreams, symbols and archetypes, and facing death, which are all commonthemes. He didn't create a clearly defined ideology like Freud. If he were a socionics EII or IEE, we would have to explain what appears to be a hopeless drift from Jungian typology.
agree completely. i'm inclined to believe that jung's own perceived identification with the functions was not very well-developed; a coherent model of functions was never really jung's thought process and the eight functions which make up socionics/MBTI/etc were only a very small portion of what jung considered to be psychology. while he certainly saw Ti as subjective thought processes, for example, the impression that i get from him is that his Ti is not nearly as associated with the fundamental principles of logic and structural organization that is seen in socionics Ti.
I'm actually wondering if maybe Rocky feels he must defend Jung. (and if Jung were an ENFp form of XNFx, then that would be expected, wouldn't it?)
That's a really bad argument, and you know it. An expression of your desire to make your own theory immune to critique, maybe?
I don't understand most things tcaudilllg says, does this mean I'm not INTj? Possibly, but I don't think people are clear cut like that - you can't expect everyone to act a certain way because they have a certain type.
From what I know, Jung found the extremes of behaviour in mentally ill people, and these became more clear in 'normal' people. Most behavioural disorders come out of some fear of dealing with time and objects and various different combinations etc. - these are expressed in 'normal' behaviour.
I think Jung could have been INTj - it's probably not surprising Jung is difficult to type - he had a huge awareness of self (especially internally) and was able to explore his neuroses - he may appear to have INTp + INTj because he was obviously introverted (and as a result of his self-explorations, which evidently can't be explored now, he was very abstract when detailing these - he referenced himself to other people's behaviours as well as mythological characters and archetypes, so INxx - the rest is difficult to determine).
Whatever Jung's type really was, I find it rather incredible that socionists can type him INTp so easily without a really good explanation for how he could be so mistaken about his own type. Most socionists probably haven't made much of an investigation of Jung's type before typing him, and that's no advert for them.
INTp-INFj?
I don't even know what a 'INTp-INFj' is - if he was anything weird, he was INTj-INTp.
I say fuck Jungian typology, if need be. Socionics can stand alone, can't it?I've always been inclined to believe Jung was an ILI. He seems to have a fluid, description-based style and never appeared dogmatic or categorical. He is known for his emphasis on the soul, unconscious, dreams, symbols and archetypes, and facing death, which are all common
jung's typology has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with direct correlation to socionics types. i have read descriptions of jungian types and functions which are very different from their socionic counterparts.
this does not mean that jung's own self-diagnoses, whatever they actually might have been (can anyone show me conclusive evidence that jung ever thought he was a Ti dominant?) were wrong, simply that they might not be correct in terms of socionics.
based on socionics definitions of the functions, NiTe appears an excellent fit for jung based on the nature of many of the non-type-related aspects of jungian psychology, which often have to do with religious and spiritual developments, and much to do with the collective unconscious thoughts of humankind. these are very Ni subjects that jung focused most of his attention and thoughts towards.
I don't know which descriptions you have read. I have read Jung's Psychological Types, and if we take that book as our source of information the correlations are definitely there. Just because you can't see them yourself doesn't mean that they are not there. I have more than once pointed out correlations and similarities between type descriptions that you have said that you have been unable to see and therefore dismiss as non-existent. Well, that only proves that you have some more work to do, since you have missed what is there for everyone to see.
My answer to Rick's first post in this thread is proof enough that Jung thought that he was either Ti dominant or Fi dominant. It is obvious that he said that he was a rational type, and it is obvious that he thought that he was an introverted type. What more proof do you need?
Okay. If what you say here, and what others have said elsewhere, really is true, then I can see only two likely explanations:
1. Jung was very confused about his own type. He thought that he was a rational type, but he was actually an irrational introverted intuitive type, who didn't understand his own thought processes. As he said himself in Psychological Types the introverted intuitives often don't understand themselves, and they don't understand why others don't understand what they are saying. He described introverted intuition as if it was something he didn't have himself, but he was wrong about that.
2. Jung's description of the behaviours and attitudes of the introverted thinking type is more or less correct, and he was like that himself. Introverted thinking in Jung's sense is also roughly similar to what in MBTT is described as introverted thinking (Ti). But what Jung didn't realize was that the type who has introverted thinking (Ti) as dominant function is an irrational type. It is called INTP in MBTT, and it is called INTp or ILI in Socionics. The socionic functions are then so different from Jung's and MBTT's that they are using almost opposite labes for the same empirical phenomenon, or they design a functional analysis that makes sense in both MBTT and Socionics, even though they have defined the single functions differently.
We are then free to choose if we want to keep the socionic functions intact and say that Jung and MBTT are wrong about the functions but have described the same kind of behaviour and attitudes in the corresponding socionic types. Or we can choose to hold on to Jung and MBTT and say that Socionics has confused things by insisting on calling the ILI (INTp) an introverted intuitive type when the same type is called an introverted thinking type in MBTT. And Socionics also insists on calling the LII (INTj) an introverted thinking type when the same type is called an introverted intuitive type in MBTT.
(What I describe above are only the likely implications if niffweed and other socionists are right, and Jung really was a totally confused introverted intuitive type. I personally think that it is much more likely that they are wrong, and that Jung's descriptions of the types and the functions are clearly similar to those in Socionics.)
Could you explain that Expat?People say that now and then. But is there evidence that he only saw the types in his patients - not all of which were really "mentally ill"?I thought it was clear. I have seen people make statements such as Subterranean's - "remember that Jung got his types from his patients" - also to imply that the types are visible only in "mentally ill" people.
My question is simply, is there any concrete evidence that it was so, that Jung saw his types only in his patients and not on other people he met daily? Also, just because they were his patients it doesn't mean that they were "mentally ill".
@Niffweed, Jung said at different times that he was "introverted thining", "rational", AND that his intuition was "archaic" (a word he used for all functions that weren't dominant, he claimed he had to exercise his intuitive functions). He also spoke of the "introverted intuitive" type (in psychological types) as a distant creature to him. He speaks of introverted rational types with confidence while seeing the introverted irrationals as a bit more mysterious to him.
What...? Where does he say his intuition was archaic...?
sigh... this again.
my two arguments are as follows. i will not pursue this debate unless these two arguments are agreed upon, because i believe them to be very obvious and do not wish to waste time arguing about them.
- jung's psychology often is very similar to socionics, but some of his descriptions, functions, and types not necessarily identical to their socionics counterparts.
- jung's own opinion of his type and his analysis of himself has absolutely nothing to do with his typology (this, however, may not be true of some of his other psychological works).
@phaedrus: i have never actually read psychological types, but i have read some of jung's other literature or works based on jung's psychology. most of what i have read deals with topics not directly related to jung's typology since i don't agree with it; i think it is much less accurate than socionics, which provides a cleaner and more thorough model.
I can't understand why you would say something like that. Of course it has a lot to do with his typology.
- What always makes these kind of discussions problematic is the fact that people are not used to distinguish between identity on a semantic level and identity on an "object" or "reference" level. I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that Jung's descriptions, functions, and types are identical on the semantic level. Jung and Socionics describe the functions and the types differently, and so does MBTT. But at least I claim that Jung and Socionics are talking about the same referents, that is, the same empirical phenomenon as Socionics does. That means that when Jung is talking about the introverted thinking type he is -- as a matter of fact -- talking about IXTjs or at least INTjs. And when he is talking about introverted intuitives he is talking about INXps. He didn't know that of course, because he knew nothing about Socionics, but he was really talking about the same thing in my opinion.
Until you have done that you should not have an opinion on Jung's type. You can start reading the most relevant parts immediately. It is all on the Internet, and you know where to find it.
this is hardly relevant. of course they both describe the same empirical phenomenon, but they differ in the way that they do so.What always makes these kind of discussions problematic is the fact that people are not used to distinguish between identity on a semantic level and identity on an "object" or "reference" level. I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that Jung's descriptions, functions, and types are identical on the semantic level. Jung and Socionics describe the functions and the types differently, and so does MBTT. But at least I claim that Jung and Socionics are talking about the same referents, that is, the same empirical phenomenon as Socionics does. That means that when Jung is talking about the introverted thinking type he is -- as a matter of fact -- talking about IXTjs or at least INTjs. And when he is talking about introverted intuitives he is talking about INXps. He didn't know that of course, because he knew nothing about Socionics, but he was really talking about the same thing in my opinion.
in fact, define for me an empirical phenomenon. you could argue that the entire existence of everything is, in fact, the only valid empirical phenomenon which can be discussed and therefore all phenomena described are simply variants of that.
well, yeah, i have read jung's descriptions of the types online. but i haven't read the whole body of the work.Until you have done that you should not have an opinion on Jung's type. You can start reading the most relevant parts immediately. It is all on the Internet, and you know where to find it.
Your objectivism is showing. There is no way to identify semantic "identity" in natural language (excluding the use of the same literal words--a trivial example).
By "reference" level I think you mean "would Jung type the same people as the same types a socionist would?"
The way I see it, the "reference" level is the only one that could possibly matter. The descriptions are secondary.
(For easy reference :wink:
Jung's 'Psychological Types'
that chapter i have read.
If you agree on this, your objections don't make any sense.
You don't have to. What is online should suffice for this discussion.
I haven't claimed that there is. But people on this forum continue to object that for example Socionics and MBTT can't be compared because they define and describe things differently. And such objections are rather stupid if they have understood what it is all about. Since I don't want to assume that people are stupid, the only explanation for their irrelevant remarks is that they confuse meanings and referents.
I think he would type them exactly the same, yes.
Of course. I completely agree. But people don't seem to realize that. If they did, they would accept my theses, or at least see them as plausible.
I think that's the only part of the book the psychological types are explained in any detail - I can't remember if the book was a collection of essays\short books, including Psychological Types, or whether the book was the whole of PT (the other chapters are about the Ego and the Anima, and psychotherapy if I recall).
no; it is your arguments that don't make any sense.If you agree on this, your objections don't make any sense.
I have explained my arguments many times, and if you don't understand them it is likely that your knowledge on this is insufficient, because you seem to be rather intelligent. Either you have missed one or two central things and can't see the whole picture, or we talk about different things somehow. And the only way to find out which it is is if you explain in more detail your reasonings. So far you haven't done that.no; it is your arguments that don't make any sense.If you agree on this, your objections don't make any sense.
very well;
you have continually stated that MBTI/jung/socionics/keirsey/enneagram/big 5/sloan/whatever the hell else describe the same empirical phenomenon of who people are and how their brains are wired. this is obviously true, but based on the direct correlations you insist on i would understand that you believe that a more fundamental phenomenon is explained by socionics/MBTI/keirsey/jung, as you reject the other typologies from having direct correlations.
my question to you is, why would you accept a direct correlation between these typologies while rejecting a direct correlation between socionics and, say, the enneagram? your line of reasoning would seem to indicate that if a person is an ENFj, then they are an ENFJ, no questions asked, as these types can be considered as fundamentally the same from the standpoint that the existence types are a purely empirical and definite phenomenon.
from that logic, it would seem, that the person has a definite and stationary (static?) type in all typologies. so, then, why could this person not be considered, say, a 3w4? you yourself have rejected a correlation between enneagram and the socion. the reasoning here is obvious; the enneagram is a vastly different mechanism from that of socionics, and a number of different factors can be measured with regards to one's enneagram type than one's socionics type.
as an example, consider the idea that the mind under enneagram has three main functions: logic, emotion, and spirit. (honestly, i am not all that familiar with concepts like these from the enneagram, so if i butcher this completely, which i will, blast me. but i think the point, comparatively, will still stand). logic (types 5-7) and emotion (types 2-4) obviously reflect logic and ethics in a socionics standpoint. however, spirit (types 8-1) has no real equivalent in socionics. to call it intuition would be highly contrary to socionics because sensation would have no place in the theory, which is very different from socionics, in which sensation is an integral part of the socion. is this interpretation wrong? i suppose one could argue that, but a more reasonable suggestion might be that this argument simply reflects the differences of the measurements which socionics and enneagram make.
another good example of this is the enneagram variant, sp/so/sx. this is not "wrong" per se, but has no socionics equivalent.
if these types truly reflected the same empirical reality, why would these differences be acceptable? each type would be pinned into a specific type, subtype, etc. yet it is not only the case that the types are definite and specific, but that they also measure vastly different variables which have no place in other typologies.
the point is that the same holds true for differences between socionics/MBTI/jung/keirsey. actually, i will refrain from discussing keirsey since i know nothing about it. nonetheless, jung, socionics, and MBTI do have different variables to be measured, perhaps less different than those of the enneagram, but such a distinction is immaterial if the typologies do not correlate 100%.
in MBTI/socionics, the differences are quite basic; MBTI's fundamental basis is the four dichotomies, I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P. two of these dichotomies differ quite radically from their socionics counterparts, namely I/E and rationality/irrationality. if you do not agree even on this count, then this discussion is basically over. however, socionics fundamentally ignores these four dichotomies, instead providing its insight on a detailed scheme of functional manifestations known as model A; perhaps you've heard of it. based on this distinction, there are some differences in the way that socionics and MBTI manifest themselves, which we have been trying to tell you forever. they may describe the same empirical reality, but they do so with different variables and thus arrive at different conclusions.
jung and socionics (i think comparing jung and MBTI is rather a waste of energy) similarly differ in their approaches. socionics' principal approach is a system called model A. jung's principal approach is observing a lot of people and making notes of the similarities of their behaviors. this leads to statements like (paraphrasing) "types can only be considered when a subject's behavior consistently takes the same approach." socionics, by contrast, takes the stand that "a subject's behavior (in the context of socionics, motivation is probably a better word, but for the sake of comparison the same terminology will be used) is influenced by his type, not vice versa." this basic difference allows jung to categorizes people directly based on his understanding of their behaviors and motivations. socionics would not make such assumptions, with the concept that behaviors and motivations are not the only manifestations of type and, more importantly, do not always reflect type (a conundrum which jung amends by the idea that not everyone need be a particular type).
essentially, the point is that whereas the variables are clearly different in these different typologies, it plays no bearing on the correlation of the types because, as the constructs are different, it cannot be reasonable to assume that the resultant types will be the same. the variables are all valid, but the brain is sufficiently complex to counteract this, so that the idea of empirical reality is rather pointless, because nothing can describe empirical reality perfectly. if not every variable existing in the empirical reality is met, then you have what is simply an approximation. in attempting to describe it as accurately as possible, one must look at all of the factors and variables which actually go into the construction of a system, because that, regardless of the "reality" is all that is of value.
Yes. Good that we agree on that. It is really irritating when people in their replies to my posts seem to question such an obvious fact.
No, not a more fundamental phenomenon. It is always the same empirical reality they are trying to desribe, but they propose different theoretical explanations for it. Their theories are different. Socionics seems to be a better theory than MBTT, because MBTT has made some fundamental errors in the premises:,it has missed the importance of V.I., and they have no theory for the intertype relations that one can take seriously. MBTT is in a sense a better theory than the Enneagram, because it has 16 types instead of 9, but, as Expat has pointed out, the Enneagram often explains some aspects of the types better.
There is a more or less direct correlation between MBTT and Socionics, because they have very similar criteria for how to put people in the correct groups (types).
If we assume that the socionic types are the correct ones, there are only two alternatives:
1. Every ENFJ is an ENFj, and no ENFJ is some other socionic type.
2. The group of ENFJs is a mixture of more than one socionic type.
Here is where people tend to confuse things. We have two different theories Socionics and MBTT. Both try to explain an empirical phenomenon: the 16 types. Both can't be right on the theoretical level, but they both describe the exact same group of people, because they draw the lines between the 16 types in almost the exact same manner. They observe and describe the exact same behaviours, and they agree on where (in which of the 16 groups) that kind of behaviour belongs. It is true that they use different names, different labels, for the same thing. The phenomenon The thinking process of an INTp is in MBTT described in terms of TiNe etc, whereas the exact same phenomenon in Socionics is described in terms of
In the Enneagram it is obvious that the enneatypes are mixutures of more than one socionic type. Not every socionic type can be a 5, but only an introverted type can be a 5, and that can be deduced from the type desriptions in both models if we compare them. Only an ethical type can be a 2, only a rational type can be a 1, etc. The correlations between Socionics and the Enneagram are rather clear but there is no 1-1 correlation as it is with MBTT.
The main reason people mistakenly believe that there is no 1-1 correlation between Socionics and MBTT is because they have got the totally incorrect idea that your type in MBTT is the same as your result on an MBTI test. I have pointed out that that is ridiculous and completely false, but most people don't seem to listen. Of course people get incorrect test results in MBTI rather often, just as they get incorrect results on socionic tests or in their own estimations of their own type. But all of those incorrect test results become irrelevant if we test many people. Millions of people have taken MBTI tests by now, and the overall pattern that there are 16 rather distinct types is very clear. And since the behaviours and attitudes of the 16 types in MBTT is very similar to how it is described in the corresponding types in Socionics, we can see that there really seems to be a 1-1 correlation. And if there is no 1-1 correlation there must be some other very determinate correlation that we simply must describe and explain. But no one has been able to put forward a better explanation than I have, that they try to describe the exact same groups of people in the light of their own theory, that they observe the same people in the same groups. But of course only one of their incompatible theoretical explanations can be true.
Yes, in almost all but the most extreme cases a person's type is static, stationary, and unchangeable, because what makes you the type you are is the structure of your brain, how it is wired at a rather fundamental level. That fundamental structure doesn't change easily. Of course you can form different habits, and change your behaviour somewhat, but that is not the same thing as making a fundamental and radical change in your brain's structure. Your type is a part of the hardware, not the software.
Until we have understood the exact correlations between the socionic types and the Enneagram types, we can only say a few things for sure about what ennatype you can be if we know your socionic type. I gave a few examples above. A 3 is probably always an extraverted type. So if you are introverted type you cannot be a 3, a 3w4 or a 3w2. That assumption may be mistaken, but it is not very likely. Everything in the type descriptions suggests that every 3 is an extraverted type.
Not at all. There are always correlations between theories. It is totally inconceivable that there would be no correlations between two theories that are trying to describe and explain the same part of the objective reality. They observe people's behaviour, so they must correlate. The only question that has not yet been answered completely is exactly how they correlate.
That is irrelevant, because that belongs to the theoretical level. The "mechanisms" is a part of the theoretical explanation. It has very little to do with how we draw the lines between the types. Even enneatype theorists can be mistaken in their typings. They may think that a person is a 3w4 based on their understanding of the motives behind that person's behaviour, but we can determine if that makes sense if we compare that person's behaviour with the ennagram type descriptions and the person's socionic type. It is the same with the enneatypes as it is with the socionic types -- you will inevitably make many typing mistakes if you focus on only one or a few aspects of a certain type. There is no single criterion that overrules all the others to such an extent that we can say that that criterion alone is the defining one. We have to look at the overall picture of each type to see if it all makes sense, that is, almost every piece in the big puzzle must fit.
No. It does not reflect a difference in measurement. Both theories use pretty much the same kind of measurement: they observe people's behaviours and try to spot similarities and differences in general patterns. What it does reflect is that they put forward different and sometimes incompatible theoretical explanations for the same observed phenomena.
If we go into details, we can see that clear logical types in the enneagram are 5s and 8s. 1s are more logical than ethical but it is probably not necessary to be a logical type if you are a 1. 6s can perhaps be logical types in Socionics, but the prototype for 6 is the ISFj. In 7s (and probaby also 3s) ethical and logical types hang together, whereas 2 is a pure ethical type. In my opinion (but that is less certain) 4 is also an almost pure ethical type, and maybe 9 is too. Type 4 is a pure intuitive type, whereas the other types are mixtures of both S and N types. But 6 is primarily a sensing type, and 5 is primarily an intuitive type, and so is type 7.
Here you compare their theoretical explanations again. And that is not what is at stake here. The "subtypes" sp, so, and sx of each enneatype correlates in a very specific and determinate way with the socionic types, but the correlation is probably very complex. It is not easy to see immediately exactly how they correlate. But of course every real life person with a certain subtype in the Enneagram is only one very specific socionic type.
The differences are not acceptable. That's why we have to compare the theories in order to find out which is the most correct, and even more important to see which statements in each theory are false. But of course they are all about the same empirical reality.
They measure the same empirical reality, but they talk about and explain the same empirical reality differently. That they focus on different aspects of the same reality is no problem at all. The Enneagram focus on some other levels of the person than Socionics and MBTT does, and that's why it is so useful as a complement to Socionics.
No, that's wrong. You have misunderstood MBTT like so many others. The fundamental basis in MBTT is the types. The four dichotomies are only used as a tool to differentiate between the 16 types. They are useful when you talk about the types and when you construct tests to determine the correct type (which is something that one observes, not the result of an MBTI test).
No. That is completely false. They don't differ much at all, at least not in any relevant way. Every introverted type in Socionics is an introverted type in MBTT, every rational type in Socionics is a J type in MBTT, and so on. That they use slightly different words to explain the dichotomies in Socionics and MBTT is of course just as irrelevant as the fact that they use different names for the same groups of people (the types). They describe the same empirical phenomena.
If you consider it over you simply refuse to correct a misunderstanding of yours. You have to change your conception of what the dichotomies stand for, because it is incorrect in its present shape.
Again totally wrong. Model A is just another way of talking about the same thing. It is another theoretical explanation, nothing else.
Exactly what I have been saying over and over again. But you and almost everyone else continue to confuse words with objects. You don't make a clear distinction between the language level (the meanings of the words) and the empirical level where we find the referents of the words. Since you agree that the referents are the same, you should realize that they only disagree on which words we should use to describe the same empirical phenomenon we both can observe and which theoretical framework is the best explanation for what we observe.
We simply must compare Jung and MBTT. And if we do, we realize that MBTT has confused the introverted functions. For example they believe that the INTP has introverted thinking (in Jung's sense) as dominant function when every INTP has introverted intuition (in Jung's sense) as dominant function.
Wrong. Both Jung's and Socionics' principal approach is observing a lot of people and making notes on the similarities of their behaviours. The model A is just a proposed theoretical explanation for the patterns that can be observed.
Once again you only talk about differences in methods and theoretical explanations. All of that is irrelevant to question whether they talk about the same thing or not. And we both agree (as you have admitted) that they really are talking about the same thing (the same referents in empirical reality). And both can make mistakes when they try to use their own methods and theoretical assumptions to type people.
Every branch of the natural sciences is trying to describe empirical reality as accurately as possible. Perfection will probably never be obtained, but in principle it is possible. And that the types are the same, you can see by comparing lots of type descriptions. In such a process we should not focus too much on the details, because it is only the general pattern that is relevant. In the details both models inevitably make mistakes.
I had said I would not get involved in this kind of discussion, but I must say I agree with most of what Phaedrus says here.
A few comments/highlights:
Exactly. That is the origin of a lot of the confusion. I do "assume" - because it corresponds to my observations - that Socionics types are the "correct" ones, or at least more correct than the alternatives. And I do think that MBTT profiles - as opposed to the actual types - are often "contaminated" by other Socionics types.
But precisely because most people don't listen to that - and probably won't ever listen - is that I think it's better to drop Myer-Briggs entirely.
It would be a very good think if that was really the case. It would mean that we could use the MBTI statistics. Personally I'm skeptical.
More precisely, only one of them can better reflect the truth than the others.
Well this is likely, in my opinion, but is it proven?
This is actually, to me, one of the evidences that, broadly, Socionics got it more right than the Enneagram. Not every individual fits in one Socionics type with the same degree of ease, but most people do fit more easily in one Socionics type - or subtype - than in the Enneagram. The Enneagram's going into wings and the sp-so-sx subtypes is, in fact, an "admission" that the original 9 types are not enough to accurately type many people. It also means that the Enneagram became more complex - and still imperfect.Here you compare their theoretical explanations again. And that is not what is at stake here. The "subtypes" sp, so, and sx of each enneatype correlates in a very specific and determinate way with the socionic types, but the correlation is probably very complex. It is not easy to see immediately exactly how they correlate. But of course every real life person with a certain subtype in the Enneagram is only one very specific socionic type.
In my own case, I still find it much easier to type myself as LIE than Enneatype 8, even if I go as "deep" as 8w9 sx/sp -- and yet, I do think that descriptions of 8's basic motivations - not necessarily those of the stereotypical "boss" behavior - give me an useful glimpse into my psyche that is less clear in Socionics.
Yes.
In principle I agree with Phaedrus that this is how it should be. However, the wrong-headed E/I and J/P definitions found in MBTI tests has also "contaminated" MBTT profiles.No. That is completely false. They don't differ much at all, at least not in any relevant way. Every introverted type in Socionics is an introverted type in MBTT, every rational type in Socionics is a J type in MBTT, and so on. That they use slightly different words to explain the dichotomies in Socionics and MBTT is of course just as irrelevant as the fact that they use different names for the same groups of people (the types). They describe the same empirical phenomena.
For instance, I agree with you - disagreeing with Rocky - that the ISTJ is much closer to a LSI than to a SLI. However, ISTJ descriptions also often suggest a sort of "shy" person, which to me indicates that the authors are following the fallacy "introvert=shy".
I will try to write a critical analysis of Jung's descriptions from the Socionics point of view at some point, but here I agree with nifweed17 - for many reasons, it's a waste of time to dig deeper into MBTT.If you consider it over you simply refuse to correct a misunderstanding of yours. You have to change your conception of what the dichotomies stand for, because it is incorrect in its present shape.
Again totally wrong. Model A is just another way of talking about the same thing. It is another theoretical explanation, nothing else.
We simply must compare Jung and MBTT. And if we do, we realize that MBTT has confused the introverted functions. For example they believe that the INTP has introverted thinking (in Jung's sense) as dominant function when every INTP has introverted intuition (in Jung's sense) as dominant function.
It would be a very good thing if, as I already said, we could assume that MBTI test statistics could be used - even if roughly - for Socionics types, but I am skeptical.
Yes.Wrong. Both Jung's and Socionics' principal approach is observing a lot of people and making notes on the similarities of their behaviours. The model A is just a proposed theoretical explanation for the patterns that can be observed.
Basically, Expat and I seem to agree on everything, except a few details of minor importance.
Or that people stop questioning what I say every time I happen to mention something about it. Often people say things about their own type in MBTT that I feel an obligation to correct. MBTT is mostly relevant as a reference point and as an indication of whether the person has understood his or her own socionic type correctly. Whenever people say that they are one type in Socionics and another in MBTT, that is almost always a sure proof that they have misunderstood something or has made an incorrect typing of themselves.But precisely because most people don't listen to that - and probably won't ever listen - is that I think it's better to drop Myer-Briggs entirely.
Yes. I am less skeptical, and I am sure we can use the MBTI statistics to give us an overall picture of the prevalence of the socionic types. We cannot be sure of the exact numbers, but it is impossible that the socionic types are equally distributed, as many socionists seem to believe.It would be a very good think if that was really the case. It would mean that we could use the MBTI statistics. Personally I'm skeptical.
No, I wouldn't say that it is proven, only that it is the alternative that makes most sense. It is probably the only alternative that is fully compatible with V.I. and body types. But some very prominent socionists, for example Smilingeyes, disagree, and I cannot prove that they are wrong, nor that I am right.Well this is likely, in my opinion, but is it proven?
For me it is a piece of cake to type myself as a 5 in the Enneagram. My type in the Enneagram has never been in any doubt whatsoever (only which wing), whereas I tested as an INTJ in MBTI at first (or rather as an INTX, because I scored almost 50/50 on the J/P scale), and also thought that I was an INTJ in the light of the false assumption that my ENTP/ENTp friend was an INTP. When that mistake had been corrected we both got our MBTT types correct. He is a clear ENTP and I am a clear INTP. It was more difficult in Socionics, where it is natural to assume that you are an INTj if you know that you are an INTP and has been told that an INTP is a TiNe. But when that mistaken assumption had also been corrected almost everything now makes sense. Every piece in the puzzle fit, all three theories -- Socionics, MBTT, and Jung's ideas in Psychological Types are included in a general overall understanding of the types, almost a unified typology if you know what I mean.
Okay. But I consider that to be an extremely minor detail. The overall pictures of the types is what matters to me. Almost every type description can probably be improved in the details.
I didn't mean to suggest that everyone has to do that. I have found it very fruitful for me personally, but others can of course do as they want. But those who don't bother to study MBTT should not have strong opinions on anything related to that either -- for example their own MBTT type or the correlations between socionic and MBTT types.
But that's the problem I see -- the simplistic criteria of "extroverted= socially outgoing, partying"; "introverted=shy, quiet"; "J=keeps desk tidy, follows schedule" and "P=messy desk, does not follow schedule" (I am aware that I am simplifying them myselfOkay. But I consider that to be an extremely minor detail. The overall pictures of the types is what matters to me. Almost every type description can probably be improved in the details.
I grant you that if you do really understand what judging and perceiving are supposed to mean in Myers-Briggs, you understand that it's not as simple as that, and that they are close to Socionics rationality and irrationality. However, this doesn't seem to be fully understood even by the authors of some MBTT profiles.
Yes, we agree on that. Some of the questions in MBTI tests (and also in Keirsey's) are bad, and some are based on that kind of unwarranted simplifications. I could point out at least some of those questions that I think should be replaced. But on the other hand, if we took all the introverted types in the world and compared them with all the extraverted types, I think it is fair to assume that we would find more partygoing people among the extraverted types and more shy people among the introverted types. And that about messy desks is probably also true as a general pattern, at least for ENps in comparison with the average type.But that's the problem I see -- the simplistic criteria of "extroverted= socially outgoing, partying"; "introverted=shy, quiet"; "J=keeps desk tidy, follows schedule" and "P=messy desk, does not follow schedule" (I am aware that I am simplifying them myself
I personally think that Keirsey's suggestion to think of extraverted types as "expressive" and introverted types as "reserved" is a slight improvement in comparison with the words used in MBTT. It probably won't lead you quite as easily in the wrong direction.
Agreed.
...Yeah, we really aren't that eager to hear what you have to say because it's never relevant.
So Rocky, about that question of Jung's archiac intuition?
yes, but if the two systems are measured along different variables, then they necessarily differ in some typings based on the differences in these variables. considering that there are differences between the descriptions, which i think everybody agrees on, then i don't think the former possibility is at all plausible.
[/quote]
Here is where people tend to confuse things. We have two different theories Socionics and MBTT. Both try to explain an empirical phenomenon: the 16 types. Both can't be right on the theoretical level, but they both describe the exact same group of people, because they draw the lines between the 16 types in almost the exact same manner. They observe and describe the exact same behaviours, and they agree on where (in which of the 16 groups) that kind of behaviour belongs. It is true that they use different names, different labels, for the same thing. The phenomenon The thinking process of an INTp is in MBTT described in terms of TiNe etc, whereas the exact same phenomenon in Socionics is described in terms of
[/quote]
socionics, jung, keirsey, and MBTI all describe 16 types, and they all describe a fundamental empirical reality in that they describe the nature of the behavior of different people. however, i do not believe it is fair to say that they describe behavior differentiated into 16 specific and static categories of people, as you state. this is because, upon analyzing the differences between the types (in this case, comparing socionical functional analyses against MBTI descriptions) there are numerous discrepancies. this, however, is beating a dead horse which you have stated that you believe to be alive and kicking.
i could understand this perspective, and i can understand where the conglomeration of MBTI and pop-psychology might have derailed the theoretical basis of the typology. however, under these circumstances, how would you evaluate what descriptions and materials from MBTI are actually correct and allegedly compatible with socionics?The main reason people mistakenly believe that there is no 1-1 correlation between Socionics and MBTT is because they have got the totally incorrect idea that your type in MBTT is the same as your result on an MBTI test. I have pointed out that that is ridiculous and completely false, but most people don't seem to listen. Of course people get incorrect test results in MBTI rather often, just as they get incorrect results on socionic tests or in their own estimations of their own type. But all of those incorrect test results become irrelevant if we test many people. Millions of people have taken MBTI tests by now, and the overall pattern that there are 16 rather distinct types is very clear. And since the behaviours and attitudes of the 16 types in MBTT is very similar to how it is described in the corresponding types in Socionics, we can see that there really seems to be a 1-1 correlation.
Some MBTT profiles even discribe IxxPs as "stronger judgers" and IxxJs as "stronger perceivers", but I think it's actually hard for people to truely tell if they have a dominant judging of perceiving function. I think kmost decide based on other things said to associate with those types.
BTW, I haven't read most of the new posts yet because they grew too quickly.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/093...lance&n=283155
You read a lot of different type descriptions and other material from every source you have access to and compare all of them with each other and with the socionic descriptions. You analyze them from as many angles as possible to spot the general patterns. You may also scrutinize the details, but in the end you get an overall picture of how each type is described in different models based on many different type descriptions and statistics, in which the details are not so important. This kind of pattern recognizing is probably what we
well, okay, but in doing so, you would basically throw away almost all of the ideas present in most MBTI descriptions. at least those available online; i can't say i've ever had any experience or concern with MBTI outside of cyberworld.
Why? What "ideas" are you talking about? Not all of them are equally good, but you get a pretty good picture of each type by reading the online descriptions.
You could probably find a book or two about MBTI in some library. The licensed material is more accurate than the average type description online, but basically they are very similar.
Posting Permissions
