The 4 dichotomies according to Socionics and MBTI

[Jarno]

This is next to irrelevant in regards to socionics types.

No, it is not irrelevant. For all practical purposes the four scales are almost identical in Socionics and MBTI. If you get a clear INTJ result in an MBTI test, you have got a test result that strongly indicates the same type in Socionics, that is the INTj, because the test result indicates the same relevant personality traits.

This is very true.

I'm glad their are still people who acknowledge that MBTI and Socionics don't differ that much when it comes to typing them with the four scales.

[Joy]

This is next to irrelevant in regards to socionics types.

No, it is not irrelevant. For all practical purposes the four scales are almost identical in Socionics and MBTI. If you get a clear INTJ result in an MBTI test, you have got a test result that strongly indicates the same type in Socionics, that is the INTj, because the test result indicates the same relevant personality traits.

This is very true.

I'm glad their are still people who acknowledge that MBTI and Socionics don't differ that much when it comes to typing them with the four scales.

Are KSpin, Jarno, and Phaedrus the same person?

[jas05]

This is next to irrelevant in regards to socionics types.

No, it is not irrelevant. For all practical purposes the four scales are almost identical in Socionics and MBTI. If you get a clear INTJ result in an MBTI test, you have got a test result that strongly indicates the same type in Socionics, that is the INTj, because the test result indicates the same relevant personality traits.

This is very true.

I'm glad their are still people who acknowledge that MBTI and Socionics don't differ that much when it comes to typing them with the four scales.

Are KSpin, Jarno, and Phaedrus the same person?

No, but they all say that they are INTp.

[Creepy-bg]

Are KSpin, Jarno, and Phaedrus the same person?

No, but they all say that they are INTp.

that's close enough

[Jarno]

Are KSpin, Jarno, and Phaedrus the same person?

I can only talk for myself and I'm not Kspin or Phaedrus, maybe the INTP thing has something to do with it, but it's easy to prove that MBTI scales match Socionics types.


I've typed all my 25 colleagus using the 4 mbti scales (in my beginning days I only used MBTI)
When I discovered Socionics, I tried to figure out my relationships with them, how the functions worked with my functions.
I concluded with the highest degree of certainty that everyones MBTI type was also their Socionics type.

[snegledmaca]

I've typed all my 25 colleagus using the 4 mbti scales (in my beginning days I only used MBTI)
When I discovered Socionics, I tried to figure out my relationships with them, how the functions worked with my functions.
I concluded with the highest degree of certainty that everyones MBTI type was also their Socionics type.

Well I typed around thirty friends (With MBTI) as well and there was only about a 30% correlation rate (Roughly every third person) between their MBTI type and their socionics type.

I fail to see how your result show that MBTI scales correlate to socionics scales.

[Joy]

it's easy to prove that MBTI scales match Socionics types.


I've typed all my 25 colleagus using the 4 mbti scales (in my beginning days I only used MBTI)
When I discovered Socionics, I tried to figure out my relationships with them, how the functions worked with my functions.
I concluded with the highest degree of certainty that everyones MBTI type was also their Socionics type.

This doesn't sound like strong Te to me... but who knows, I'm sure there are a lot of foolish Te types, so perhaps I should somehow expand my view of Te to include them?

[Slacker]

Are KSpin, Jarno, and Phaedrus the same person?

I can only talk for myself and I'm not Kspin or Phaedrus, maybe the INTP thing has something to do with it, but it's easy to prove that MBTI scales match Socionics types.


I've typed all my 25 colleagus using the 4 mbti scales (in my beginning days I only used MBTI)
When I discovered Socionics, I tried to figure out my relationships with them, how the functions worked with my functions.
I concluded with the highest degree of certainty that everyones MBTI type was also their Socionics type.

OK so how have you proven that MBTI types match Socionics types? You typed 25 people? Do you not see how questionable the validity of this is?

[Joy]

No, I believe his words were "the highest degree of certainty"

IT'S A FACT!!!

[Jarno]

I've typed all my 25 colleagus using the 4 mbti scales (in my beginning days I only used MBTI)
When I discovered Socionics, I tried to figure out my relationships with them, how the functions worked with my functions.
I concluded with the highest degree of certainty that everyones MBTI type was also their Socionics type.

Well I typed around thirty friends (With MBTI) as well and there was only about a 30% correlation rate (Roughly every third person) between their MBTI type and their socionics type.

I fail to see how your result show that MBTI scales correlate to socionics scales.

in an other post you explained your way of typing people

I type people solely on my impression, assement of them. Initially my assessment sucks, but over time, as I get to know the person better, my impression of them gets better and better. I interpret my impressions with pieces of knowledge that I poses and get their type.

this immediately tells me something about your typing quality's.

There are a lot of posters in here who use different typing techniques and they also claim that MBTI scales correlate with Socionics type. I guess the problem lies in how experienced someone is in the use of different typing skills.

[Gilly]

it's easy to prove that MBTI scales match Socionics types.


I've typed all my 25 colleagus using the 4 mbti scales (in my beginning days I only used MBTI)
When I discovered Socionics, I tried to figure out my relationships with them, how the functions worked with my functions.
I concluded with the highest degree of certainty that everyones MBTI type was also their Socionics type.

This doesn't sound like strong Te to me... but who knows, I'm sure there are a lot of foolish Te types, so perhaps I should somehow expand my view of Te to include them?

YES, Joy, if your view of Te types did not already include people who are unintelligent or otherwise personally flawed, it should probably change.

[Phaedrus]

I can only talk for myself and I'm not Kspin or Phaedrus, maybe the INTP thing has something to do with it, but it's easy to prove that MBTI scales match Socionics types.

Yes, and it is almost incomprehensible to me why people are questioning such an obvious fact. That the scales are very similar in both models is of course recognized by socionists like Lytov, Rick and Ganin, just to name a few well-known names. Lytov discusses and compares the scales in relation to both models in his Introduction into Socionics, which can be found on his site. That the scales don't correlate is an absurd claim.

[Joy]

it's easy to prove that MBTI scales match Socionics types.


I've typed all my 25 colleagus using the 4 mbti scales (in my beginning days I only used MBTI)
When I discovered Socionics, I tried to figure out my relationships with them, how the functions worked with my functions.
I concluded with the highest degree of certainty that everyones MBTI type was also their Socionics type.

This doesn't sound like strong Te to me... but who knows, I'm sure there are a lot of foolish Te types, so perhaps I should somehow expand my view of Te to include them?

YES, Joy, if your view of Te types did not already include people who are unintelligent or otherwise personally flawed, it should probably change.

Oh, no. It's not that. I know plenty of Te types who aren't particularly bright.

It's this:

No, I believe his words were "the highest degree of certainty"

IT'S A FACT!!!

[Jarno]

it's easy to prove that MBTI scales match Socionics types.


I've typed all my 25 colleagus using the 4 mbti scales (in my beginning days I only used MBTI)
When I discovered Socionics, I tried to figure out my relationships with them, how the functions worked with my functions.
I concluded with the highest degree of certainty that everyones MBTI type was also their Socionics type.

This doesn't sound like strong Te to me... but who knows, I'm sure there are a lot of foolish Te types, so perhaps I should somehow expand my view of Te to include them?

Well at least I try to give you some clear arguments, facts and proof, the only thing you do is just telling people are fools...

that doesn't convince me, sorry. :wink:

[Joy]

it's easy to prove that MBTI scales match Socionics types.


I've typed all my 25 colleagus using the 4 mbti scales (in my beginning days I only used MBTI)
When I discovered Socionics, I tried to figure out my relationships with them, how the functions worked with my functions.
I concluded with the highest degree of certainty that everyones MBTI type was also their Socionics type.

This doesn't sound like strong Te to me... but who knows, I'm sure there are a lot of foolish Te types, so perhaps I should somehow expand my view of Te to include them?

Well at least I try to give you some clear arguments, facts and proof, the only thing you do is just telling people are fools...

that doesn't convince me, sorry. :wink:

Facts and proof? All you've said is "It's a FACT because I've thought it over a lot, including how I get along with them, and I absolutely KNOW that there is NO CHANCE that I could be wrong."

[snegledmaca]

I've typed all my 25 colleagus using the 4 mbti scales (in my beginning days I only used MBTI)
When I discovered Socionics, I tried to figure out my relationships with them, how the functions worked with my functions.
I concluded with the highest degree of certainty that everyones MBTI type was also their Socionics type.

Well I typed around thirty friends (With MBTI) as well and there was only about a 30% correlation rate (Roughly every third person) between their MBTI type and their socionics type.

I fail to see how your result show that MBTI scales correlate to socionics scales.

in an other post you explained your way of typing people

I type people solely on my impression, assement of them. Initially my assessment sucks, but over time, as I get to know the person better, my impression of them gets better and better. I interpret my impressions with pieces of knowledge that I poses and get their type.

this immediately tells me something about your typing quality's.

I still fail to see how your results show that MBTI scales correlate to socionics scales. (And please don't use such cheap tricks like ad hominems and address the issue at hand. You may not approve of my methods but that says nothing about their quality)

[Joy]

You may not approve of my methods but that says nothing about their quality

The quality of any of our typings cannot be verified. Even if everyone agrees on a person's type, we could still be wrong. Yes, we have to accept certain things in order to operate under the theory, but to say that any of us KNOWS someone's type for a FACT is ridiculous, imo.

[Phaedrus]

I can only talk for myself and I'm not Kspin or Phaedrus, maybe the INTP thing has something to do with it, but it's easy to prove that MBTI scales match Socionics types.

Yes, and it is almost incomprehensible to me why people are questioning such an obvious fact. That the scales are very similar in both models is of course recognized by socionists like Lytov, Rick and Ganin, just to name a few well-known names. Lytov discusses and compares the scales in relation to both models in his Introduction into Socionics, which can be found on his site. That the scales don't correlate is an absurd claim.

Sigh. Well, then I'd guess if you go by the very very simplistic scales in MBTI, the majority of the people on this forum are NT. The problem is, they're really not. Who cares whether something superficially looks similar or not? Who cares how many people claim so and how "well-known" they are, if it doesn't match with reality it's a bunch of crap.

Why don't you criticize Dmitri Lytov if you think that what he says is a bunch of crap? That would be much more interesting than criticizing me when I say the same things he does. I only agree with "official" Socionics here and elsewhere. If you think that Lytov's or Rick's understanding of Socionics is incorrect, why can't you try to argue for it? If they are wrong, I would like to hear the reasons for it, so that I might be able to see for myself how that can be.

[Joy]

I only agree with "official" Socionics here and elsewhere.

You only agree with what's convenient for you.

If you think that Lytov's or Rick's understanding of Socionics is incorrect, why can't you try to argue for it? If they are wrong, I would like to hear the reasons for it, so that I might be able to see for myself how that can be.

They're not showing up here saying "MBTI = Socionics har har har I can't believe people can't see that". The fact is that she doesn't know exactly what they've said about the subject and most likely doesn't trust that you're not taking it out of context.

[Joy]

I only agree with "official" Socionics here and elsewhere.

You only agree with what's convenient for you.

don't get me wrong... I'm not saying I've never done the same (especially taking information/descriptions out of context)... that's what tends to happen when you're dead set on being a type that you're not

[Jarno]

You may not approve of my methods but that says nothing about their quality

The quality of any of our typings cannot be verified. Even if everyone agrees on a person's type, we could still be wrong. Yes, we have to accept certain things in order to operate under the theory, but to say that any of us KNOWS someone's type for a FACT is ridiculous, imo.

i'll explain why i used "highest degree of certainty". I'ts because their are different degrees. Sometimes I know something is PROBABLY right, but sometimes i use the "Highest degree of certainty" that can be obtained, which means in my former post: I know those people very well, I've typed them in different ways, I'm sure that i'm right.

If that's the same as a "Fact" I don't know. It depends on your definition of the word Fact.

Let me phrase it different: "I couldn't be more certain"

[Joy]

"I couldn't be more certain"

tack "at this point in time with my current understanding of both those people and socionics" on to the end of it and I'm with you

I don't generally say things like "at this point in time with my current understanding of both those people and socionics", I just say "reasonably certain" to mean approximately the same thing.

[Slacker]

It's a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". Phaedrus needs to show us that these people have said that peoples' MBTI types are the same as their Socionics types if he wants to use them as authorities for that particular argument.

[Phaedrus]

If you think that Lytov's or Rick's understanding of Socionics is incorrect, why can't you try to argue for it? If they are wrong, I would like to hear the reasons for it, so that I might be able to see for myself how that can be.

The fact is that she [Diana] doesn't know exactly what they've said about the subject and most likely doesn't trust that you're not taking it out of context.

If she doesn't know exactly what Lytov has said about the subject, she hasn't read his and Marianna Lytova's Introduction into Socionics, which I have been referring to many, many times. I have even cited the relevant passages in another post before. I recommend both of you reading all three parts of that paper, but it is in part 2 that he specifically compares the scales and the models and how they correlate:

http://www.socionics.us/socioniko/en...ndex-type.html

It's a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". Phaedrus needs to show us that these people have said that peoples' MBTI types are the same as their Socionics types if he wants to use them as authorities for that particular argument.

I don't appeal to authority. I make my own observations and draw my own conclusions. They only happens to coincide rather strongly with Lytov's when it comes to the correlations between Socionics and MBTT. We don't agree in every detail, but our approaches are very similar, as you all can see if you read what he has written about this subject.

Lytov hasn't claimed that "people's MBTI types are the same as their Socionics types", and that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the four scales -- the dichotomies. And they are clearly very similar, as pointed out by both Lytov, me, Jarno, and others. Now, if you read Lytov's exposition on that subject we can discuss this further, but first we must have a common ground of understanding, and that's why it is necessary that you study the relevant material too.

[Joy]

perhaps this thread should be split

[FDG]

perhaps this thread should be split

Perhaps Phaedrus' cranium should be split, too

[Creepy-bg]

perhaps this thread should be split

Perhaps Phaedrus' cranium should be split, too

[Phaedrus]

If she doesn't know exactly what Lytov has said about the subject, she hasn't read his and Marianna Lytova's Introduction into Socionics, which I have been referring to many, many times. I have even cited the relevant passages in another post before. I recommend both of you reading all three parts of that paper, but it is in part 2 that he specifically compares the scales and the models and how they correlate:

http://www.socionics.us/socioniko/en...ndex-type.html

My goodness. Perhaps you should read it yourself. He completely blows your assertion that MBTI INTP = socionics INTp out of the water.

I have now repeatedly asked you to read Dmitri Lytov's and Marianna Lytova's Introduction into Socionics (especially part 2), which can be found at the bottom of that page you are now citing from. (For some reason it seems difficult to link directly to that paper, but you will find it if you scroll down.) Any further discussion of this is pointless if you refuse to read the sources I am referring to.

[implied]

has anyone bothered to look at the xanga link in this person's profile?

http://www.xanga.com/yhfc

[FDG]

If she doesn't know exactly what Lytov has said about the subject, she hasn't read his and Marianna Lytova's Introduction into Socionics, which I have been referring to many, many times. I have even cited the relevant passages in another post before. I recommend both of you reading all three parts of that paper, but it is in part 2 that he specifically compares the scales and the models and how they correlate:

http://www.socionics.us/socioniko/en...ndex-type.html

My goodness. Perhaps you should read it yourself. He completely blows your assertion that MBTI INTP = socionics INTp out of the water.

I have now repeatedly asked you to read Dmitri Lytov's and Marianna Lytova's Introduction into Socionics (especially part 2), which can be found at the bottom of that page you are now citing from. (For some reason it seems difficult to link directly to that paper, but you will find it if you scroll down.) Any further discussion of this is pointless if you refuse to read the sources I am referring to.

I don't understand why Ashton is banned and Phaedrus is allowed to speak in such a a demeaning way to a woman. Please ask your wife to beat you with a stick, Phaedrus. Your mere presence in this forum is IRRITATING.

[eunice]

Her xanga posts are full of and .

[Expat]

Lytov's text can lead to confusion if quoted out of context.

For instance, he (or they) write at one point:

The definitions of this dichotomy seem to be equal both in socionics and in MBTT. If we even noticed certain differences, they were caused by own perception of their authors, not by any traditions.
The only difference is the name. Let us remind: the term used in the US may lead to confusion (which was noticed by Jung himself), because, for example, the word “feeling” describes not only the emotional sphere (which is really described by this part of the dichotomy), but also human perception.

However, when actually discussing each of them, the text points out precisely when the MBTT definitions (and typings) disagree with those of Socionics.

For instance, when talking about extroversion and introversion:

In our colloquial language “extravert” means an open, sociable, communicable person, while “introvert” means a reserved, reticent, shy one. Such definition was given to these words not by Jung, but by Hans Jurgen Eysenck, who borrowed these words from Jung's works. According to Myers &Briggs, these words have just the same meaning. Keirsey somewhat changed his views on them: initially, in his test extroversion was associated with communicability and activity, but in its last version – only with communicability.

However, socionics uses somewhat different definitions of these words.

We just need to repeat what we have already said: if we accept the definition according to Myers and Keirsey, such definition will strongly correlate with two other criteria, sensation/intuition and feeling/thinking. The extravert according to Myers and Keirsey will be a little bit more sensory than intuitive, and a little bit more feeling than thinking. And the introvert according to Myers and Keirsey will be, on the contrary, more intuitive than sensory, and more thinking than feeling.

In socionics, extroversion/introversion is associated with INITIATIVE. Extraverts tend to extend their activity, to be anxious whether they did all the could, or can do something more; introverts, on the contrary, rather want to avoid redundancy.

So - as in the other dichotomies - the Lytovs start by saying how they are similar to MBTT, and then proceed to explain precisely how they differ.

[Joy]

I don't understand why Ashton is banned and Phaedrus is allowed to speak in such a a demeaning way to a woman.

1.) Why should it matter that she's a woman?
2.) You cannot be serious... You know damn well that Ashton wasn't banned for trolling or flaming.
3.) The things you repeatedly say to/about Phaedrus are obviously far more offensive than what he said to Diana.

[Creepy-bg]

I don't understand why Ashton is banned and Phaedrus is allowed to speak in such a a demeaning way to a woman.

1.) Why should it matter that she's a woman?
2.) You cannot be serious... You know damn well that Ashton wasn't banned for trolling or flaming.
3.) The things you repeatedly say to/about Phaedrus are obviously far more offensive than what he said to Diana.

1.) lol

[Phaedrus]

So - as in the other dichotomies - the Lytovs start by saying how they are similar to MBTT, and then proceed to explain precisely how they differ.

Yes. But they stress the similarities more than the differences, and their approach -- just as mine -- is to compare Socionics with MBTT and Keirsey in order to understand what they have in common and why a dialogue between proponents of all three models should be fruitful. And the four scales (or "dichotomies" as Lytov and Rick prefer to call them) are still very similar, just as the criteria for distinguishing between them are very similar. Even Lytov's test questions for the four scales are clearly similar to typical questions in MBTI test.

[Joy]

Even Lytov's test questions for the four scales are clearly similar to typical questions in MBTI test.

Yeah, and I came out ENTp on his test.

[Expat]

But they stress the similarities more than the differences,

On the contrary, if you read the comparison of MBTT definition of Extroversion/Introversion with the Socionics one, as I outlined above - and especially if you read the full text, never mind my quotes and bold parts - it is clear that they're very different, according to Lytov.

Surely, being an "open, sociable, communicative" person (MBTT extrovert) is significantly different from " tending to extend their activity, to be anxious whether they did all the could, or can do something more" (Socionics extrovert) as Lytov just pointed out?

I'm a typical case. According to the above, I am an introvert per MBTT, and an extrovert per Socionics. Now perhaps Lytov's understanding is flawed, but for the moment I'm just analyzing what he (or they) say, since that is what you suggested.

[Joy]

I'd be an MBTI introvert and just barely leaning towards socionics extrovert, according to the article.




What's this all about, anyways? Phaedrus defending his position that his MBTI type supports his case for being INTp?

[Creepy-bg]

I'd be an MBTI introvert and just barely leaning towards socionics extrovert, according to the article.




What's this all about, anyways? Phaedrus defending his position that his MBTI type supports his case for being INTp?

no it's about "The 4 dichotomies according to Socionics and MBTT" wether they are the same or not...

[Expat]

What's this all about, anyways? Phaedrus defending his position that his MBTI type supports his case for being INTp?

Not directly -- it started with the argument whether the MBTI result as INTJ for 2sw33t was important evidence for her Socionics type.