Cognitive functions: To what extent do you believe in them? (Ne, Ti, Fe, Si, Ni, Te, Fi, Se, as opposed to E\I, N\S, F\T, J\P, anything else, or none)

[Not A Communist Shill]

?

[Pendulum]

Different ways of describing the same phenomenon. Combine blue and black and you get dark blue, just like combining extraversion with intuition gives you Ne.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Different ways of describing the same phenomenon. Combine blue and black and you get dark blue, just like combining extraversion with intuition gives you Ne.

The notion in Socionics is that a cognitive function like explains a set of traits above and beyond the underlying dichotomous traits ("extroversion" + "intuition" +"irrationality"): that it is more than the sum of its parts.

But research into this has shown that such permutations not only not do this, they have less predictive value than when the underlying traits are used separately. It's not enough to say "Of course the cognitive functions exist, everyone knows that extroversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, ethics/logic, rationality/irrationality dichotomies exist".

[ouronis]

Maybe better to say "how do you see them"

[godslave]

To the extent that it stays in the abstract realm and to not search for a physical manifestation of their existence in some part of the brain. The term cognitive "Function" is not an appropriate one imho because it can be confused with brain functions and the areas in which they are located (brain lobes).

Now, the flow of any kind of informations in the brain is electric in nature and therefore the idea of IEs has to be of the same nature i.e. expressed in the form of electric activities. In that sense and from that perspective there is no reason why IEs would not exist. Whether we call that "thoughts" or IEs doesn't matter since the phenomena exist and is measurable (electroencephalography). So the "belief" of the existence of IEs and functions also depends on how we conceptualize them.

It is absolutely certain that our brain is saturated with all kind of informations and that there is a hierarchy in regards to the priority of their treatments because the brain can not consciously treat two kinds of informations simultaneously (even if the delay is counted in nanoseconds). That being said our main brain circuit (synaptogenesis) tends to stabilised by the age of 3-4 and I think that by that age the main information flow of a TIM (core) has being established.

We all know the plasticity power of the brain and the more we learn the more the brain tends to consolidate the circuits (paths) involved in order to facilitate the access to those informations. It's like muscle memory, In Karate for instance, katas are practiced over and over until the movements become almost unconscious and would be instantaneously accessible in case of real combat with a real opponent. "It's the body who is learning not the mind !" is what a Karate sensei would tell you if you asked for the utility of Katas. Same with learning a musical instrument, same with math, business, writing etc..

Anyway, socionics is just a theory which gave us a more simplified system of a real and extremely complex phenomena (nothing less than the human cognition !) involving all kind of factors (genetic, environmental, chemical, life course history etc..).


Note that I don't know what I'm talking about !

[Squirrel]

Last year, our math teacher told us that rays exist, but we represent them as we write them because we don't really know what they look like.

The same goes for these functions, they exist , we see their behaviours in other people but we don't know exactly what they look like irl

[myresearch]

Maybe better to say "how do you see them"

How do YOU see them?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I believe in them, but just cause somebody has high Se doesn't mean I will automatically like them or want anything to do with them or like... feel they are giving me something in this idealistic or romantic way. As mu4 said, type is rarely the problem of why people can't get along or why do they get along. And like the healthy Se ego ppl take it too personally if you say 4D Se ego is tied to unhealthy physical aggression that gets u sent to prison because it's like no offense to anybody- but it kinda is.

Just like Ni is tied up with imagination and accurate insight, but so much things in the real world imagination or insight is very useless and u need more than that. People underestimate how creativity helps us solve problems though, and brings us from point A to B - otherwise we're all swimming in feces just because feces are real.

People don't take socionics objectively enough and still take it way too personally. Like IEIs play the victim objectively a lot, but it's not like you should play the victim that we play the victim either. Like I say how Ne is insufferable, and a Ne type who isn't insufferable gets pissed at that- or maybe he's just butthurt that I'm right but I'm not really an arrogant asshole so I don't think that- it's more the former. Types aren't based on people they are based on types....

[FDG]

The evidence of cognitive functions as described by socionics is fairly weak from a scientific point of view.

Jungian descriptions of personalities, categorized by what he described as "functions", I think has a basis on reality but there's nothing factual.

Talanov's lists are quite interesting because you can basically create data-nodes based on specific types where specific answers are clustering. That's the direction we should follow IMHO.

[ouronis]

How do YOU see them?

I wonder if it's more interesting to dichotomize the different ways people could see them.

Aka:
Systematic or tendency-based - are there fixed rules for how a person with certain IEs behaves or thinks or just appearances of fixed rules?
Fundamental or tangential - are IEs a priori part of a person or do they build up from life experiences over time
Defining or flexible - can a person change their IEs and their prominence or are they permanently fixed
Behavioral or cognitive - do IEs directly play into behavior (do they imply action) or only impact thought-patterns/awareness
etc.

[The Reality Denialist]

It is sort of an attunement to something seemingly specific collection of qualities. Clusters in some space that show essentially combination .with other stuff.. so distillation to orthogonal qualities is done via comparison of observations. In reality there is nothing pure.

[Pendulum]

The notion in Socionics is that a cognitive function like explains a set of traits above and beyond the underlying dichotomous traits ("extroversion" + "intuition" +"irrationality"): that it is more than the sum of its parts.

But research into this has shown that such permutations not only not do this, they have less predictive value than when the underlying traits are used separately. It's not enough to say "Of course the cognitive functions exist, everyone knows that extroversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, ethics/logic, rationality/irrationality dichotomies exist".

Without the ability of certain traits to combine and produce new particular characteristics there is no concept of personality types, only a series of dichotomies that exist independently of one another. A personality type is always more than the sum of its parts, no matter what system you're using, functions are one of the many ways to describe it. The question is just how much can be inferred. The reality of personality is that it's so complex, ever-changing and defined not just by nature and genetics, but also experience and environment that even the most scientific of systems still only works in slight inclinations and approximations with its predictions, because everyone is so different from one another. It seems like there's very little constant and a lot that's variable in our personality, whatever labels we carry with ourselves don't usually say what we do as much as it says what we're inclined to do given the known trends. In Socionics theory there is a lot of idealization, but also a lot of observation, which has resulted in models that attempt to add more nuance to types through layers explaining the differences within them, pushing the theory further from hard archetypes we fit into and more towards a complex spectrum of traits and preferences that can vary with time. The biggest example of this is Gulenko's studies, which have added DCHN, function accentuations and states to explain not just why it's not just possible and common to not fit the perfect archetypes, but also why certains parts of our personality change with time.

There's more to it, but the essence of Ne is intuition given extraverted traits. MBTI - which you seem insistent on using interchangibly with Socionics despite them being different in theory, definitions, authors, methodology - utilizes dichotomies in their test to determine type, having abandoned functions long ago, and still assigns you a full image based on these preferences, regardless of how close you are to the center or not. The image of an ENTP goes beyond it being extraverted, intuitive, logical and perceiving, there's some things which are unique to it in particular, as well as things that are unique to the small groups that compose the type. That's without mentioning the fact that the depending on the method we may even fall on different sides of a dichotomy when testing at different periods in our lives. This MBTI looks for dichotomies on a surface level, extraversion and introversion, for example, mean different things there compared to Socionics, being related to how outgoing or reclusive a person is, while in Socionics, closer to its Jungian origin, the dichotomy is about inwards or outwards focus, tendency towards energy expendure or preservation, bodies and fields. In Socionics you can be a reclusive Extravert, or your level of sociability can vary throughout your life, but you're still believe to always remain an Extravert. Just one the ways the systems differ.

What the 'research' you linked shows mostly is that there isn't a high correlation between a person's assigned MBTI type and its corresponded functions according to the MBTI system. This does nothing to disprove functions, it just says the two systems aren't in agreement, which can be for a number of different reasons, most of which would be specific to MBTI. This could be incorrect assignment of function to type, different interpretations of theory which don't match its basis, the type dichotomies not corresponding to function dichotomies (Judging =/= Rational and Judging =/= Dynamic), inconsistent methods of typing, etc. If MBTI tested functions and assigned types based on it, do you think there wouldn't be similarities between types with simular functions? It wouldn't make sense because the reason they got assigned the same functions in the first place is due to similarities. What I see is two methods of constructing a personality profile not working well together, not one that disproves the other.

The functions and the way they correlate to type have always been a matter of interpretation, every author essentially has their own version of it. In their Jungian conception, there are 4 functions. N, S, T and F. The functions have a naturally dichotomous nature to them, N repels S and vice-versa, and T repels F and vice-versa. One singular function will be dominant, making its opposite the inferior and giving a person two characteristics: Rationality/Irrationality and the trait associated with the function. There are also 2 possible orientations a person may have, Extraversion and Introversion, one will dominate the conscious and push its opposite to the subconscious. The dominant orientation and the dominant function combine, like two forces pushing you in cardinal directions which merge into a diagonal, creating a particular psychological type with its own characteristics. Furthermore, a person can have a secondary preference for one of the remaining pairs, which will also mold their personality, with minor characteristics associated with that trait. This is important because understanding this process is understanding how the "code" of a type in Jung actually translates to a series of small groups that exist because of the way the functions are positioned. They're intercorrelated and essentially mean the same thing.

Let's pick for example, a person with dominating F (Feeling), auxiliary N (Intuition) preference and Introverted character. The dominance of of Feeling gives this person a Rational character which for the sake of consistency with everything else, we'll assign the letter J to. This is an INFJ. We already went over each individual letter, so what information can we extract from this combination of letters, in groups of two?
FJ - Dominating Feeling.
NJ - Secondary Intuition.
IJ - Introverted Rational
IF - Introverted Feeling (Fi) type
IN - Introverted Intuitive (Ni) type.

These groups are all have their own characteristics which are shared by all members, and all have been discussed by Jungs as independent groups. A personality type is how these groups combine and interact to make something unique. Why does an INFJ have a preference for Fi over Ni in Jung? Because what separates an INFJ from an INFP is having primary feeling, which works differently from secondary feeling and has the rational traits associated with it. They can't exist in discordance with one another. Compare it with MBTI functions, in which the groups and their meanings are different.
FJ - Extraverted Feeling (Judging types extravert their primary judging function, which in MBTI means is mainly how they interact with the outside)
NJ - Introverted Intuition (Judging types introvert their primary perceiving functiony yadda yadda yadda)
IJ - Dominant function is Introverted Perceiving
IF - Either Fi dominant or Fe auxiliary (not much in common)
IN - Either Ni dominant or Ne auxilairy (again, not much in common)

You can see a major difference between the correspondance between functions and groups and therefore dichotomies between the two models. The MBTI has vastly different implications about what each of the groups have in common with one another, that can make it seem like there's a hierarchy of similarity and some arbitrary differences between types. (ENTJs lead with judging, but INTJs lead with perceiving, giving them theoretically, different characteristics which were not expressed in those typed through dichotomeis). This is important because Socionics is much closer to the Jungian model than the MBTI model. It's a lot more specific of course and adds many dichotomies and weird subgroups of its own, but on a fundamental level the functions translate more directly to the dichotomies and the subgroups have shared strenghts (All ENs have 4D Ne, All EFs have 4D Fe, etc). Different systems will yield different results.

I don't see evidence pro or against the existance of functions. Assuming something is false until proven true is just as much as a belief of the opposite, that's what it means to be certain of someone uncertain. Science doesn't tell us what is true, just what has been able to proved with our current tools and methods. And even then we can never take it for granted, because there might just be a new discovery that disproves what was previously held as truth. My interpretation of Jung has always been that they're not mechanisms as much as they're abstractions of the mind meant to illustrate our preferences towards certain types of information and activity. Strength and preference is relative, not something binary. In that perspective, I can see why Model A might make them seem to "neat" and organized. The mind is very chaotic, after all. But as I've discussed, and Model G elaborates on, type is often spectrum, and our resamblance towards a certain type is as meaningful as our differences. Two ILIs are not the same people, if we interpret this at the meta functional level, it means their functions aren't operating exactly the same, but there's enough similarities between them that makes them able to be grouped under the same type. I don't think we've peeled all the layers that explore the common ground among the divergence, there's so much more to it that we could add 50 different subcategories and it still wouldn't be enough to account for everyone. We're getting closer though, and getting too specific shouldn't be the goal, I think SHS is striking a nice balance.

[lavos]

What I don't understand, is why there is a disconnect between dichotomal preferences, and the functions. It seems reasonable to think that an SLE will score "ESTP" in a dichotomal preference test, but that is not always true, and sometimes they can score for example "ENTJ". It seems logical to think that it would always match up (sometimes it does) but many times it does not. This is the main reason MBTI is flawed. I suspect what MBTI tests detect might be your enneagram, instead of your actual processsing of information (as per model A).

[Not A Communist Shill]

Without the ability of certain traits to combine and produce new particular characteristics there is no concept of personality types, only a series of dichotomies that exist independently of one another. A personality type is always more than the sum of its parts, no matter what system you're using, functions are one of the many ways to describe it.

It can only be more than the sum of its parts if it actually exists in reality. We can combined traits together, but that does not mean they represent anything higher that actually exists.

The question is just how much can be inferred. The reality of personality is that it's so complex, ever-changing and defined not just by nature and genetics, but also experience and environment that even the most scientific of systems still only works in slight inclinations and approximations with its predictions, because everyone is so different from one another. It seems like there's very little constant and a lot that's variable in our personality, whatever labels we carry with ourselves don't usually say what we do as much as it says what we're inclined to do given the known trends. In Socionics theory there is a lot of idealization, but also a lot of observation, which has resulted in models that attempt to add more nuance to types through layers explaining the differences within them, pushing the theory further from hard archetypes we fit into and more towards a complex spectrum of traits and preferences that can vary with time. The biggest example of this is Gulenko's studies, which have added DCHN, function accentuations and states to explain not just why it's not just possible and common to not fit the perfect archetypes, but also why certains parts of our personality change with time.

When qualified psychologists make personality models (like the Big Five or the HEXACO), they use traits/descriptors that are stable in individuals over a period of say a few weeks (between taking the same tests twice). So moods for example would not be used. Socionics as of yet has no validity and nor reliability, because it doesn't even have a method, nevermind a standardised test.

As far as I know, there's hardly any data to back Socionics up. I recall a study of around 200 people which explored relationship dynamics between couples, but I don't remember it describing a qualified methodology, and it certainly wasn't peer-reviewed by psychologists who could inform us of its significance. I doubt 200 or so people would not be enough for a meaningful study in any case, but the methodology would probably be the most interesting and significant thing about it.

There's more to it, but the essence of Ne is intuition given extraverted traits. MBTI - which you seem insistent on using interchangibly with Socionics despite them being different in theory, definitions, authors, methodology - utilizes dichotomies in their test to determine type, having abandoned functions long ago, and still assigns you a full image based on these preferences, regardless of how close you are to the center or not. The image of an ENTP goes beyond it being extraverted, intuitive, logical and perceiving, there's some things which are unique to it in particular, as well as things that are unique to the small groups that compose the type. That's without mentioning the fact that the depending on the method we may even fall on different sides of a dichotomy when testing at different periods in our lives. This MBTI looks for dichotomies on a surface level, extraversion and introversion, for example, mean different things there compared to Socionics, being related to how outgoing or reclusive a person is, while in Socionics, closer to its Jungian origin, the dichotomy is about inwards or outwards focus, tendency towards energy expendure or preservation, bodies and fields. In Socionics you can be a reclusive Extravert, or your level of sociability can vary throughout your life, but you're still believe to always remain an Extravert. Just one the ways the systems differ.

I don't use MBTI interchangibly with Socionics. The reason those papers were mentioned (aside from lack of research into Socionics) is because the observations cited would have direct applicability to Socionics too. The "category mistake" claim against MBTI is just as true for Socionics, and the lack of evidence for the eight functions in MBTI I think absolutely has significance for Socionics, as 1) I believe it is reasonable to see some degree of overlap between Socionics / MBTI / Big Five and 2) researchers who have thoroughly set out to model human behaviour have not found anything resembling "eight functions" as they are in Socionics when doing factor analysis where groups of similar traits are put together: and attempts to try only result in less predictive value, not more.

What the 'research' you linked shows mostly is that there isn't a high correlation between a person's assigned MBTI type and its corresponded functions according to the MBTI system. This does nothing to disprove functions, it just says the two systems aren't in agreement, which can be for a number of different reasons, most of which would be specific to MBTI. This could be incorrect assignment of function to type, different interpretations of theory which don't match its basis, the type dichotomies not corresponding to function dichotomies (Judging =/= Rational and Judging =/= Dynamic), inconsistent methods of typing, etc. If MBTI tested functions and assigned types based on it, do you think there wouldn't be similarities between types with simular functions? It wouldn't make sense because the reason they got assigned the same functions in the first place is due to similarities. What I see is two methods of constructing a personality profile not working well together, not one that disproves the other.

The Big Five factors have a high level of test-retest reliability: the Big Five is the most common gold standard when it comes to personality models (maybe the HEXACO is better). The MBTI has a poor test-retest reliability, and Socionics doesn't seem to have any data at all, but resembles MBTI more than it does the Big Five.

I can accept that it doesn't disprove Socionics conjectures, but this isn't necessary for Socionics to remain unproven. But I personally consider it pertinent evidence against Socionics, that partly indicate to me that Socionics has no future. Another point on this: if Myers-Briggers and professional psychologists have not been able to fix MBTI in light of such research, then Socionics is very much a dead conjecture. Maybe actual empirical data can save it - at such a time, I may reconsider my move away from it.

The functions and the way they correlate to type have always been a matter of interpretation, every author essentially has their own version of it. In their Jungian conception, there are 4 functions. N, S, T and F. The functions have a naturally dichotomous nature to them, N repels S and vice-versa, and T repels F and vice-versa. One singular function will be dominant, making its opposite the inferior and giving a person two characteristics: Rationality/Irrationality and the trait associated with the function. There are also 2 possible orientations a person may have, Extraversion and Introversion, one will dominate the conscious and push its opposite to the subconscious. The dominant orientation and the dominant function combine, like two forces pushing you in cardinal directions which merge into a diagonal, creating a particular psychological type with its own characteristics. Furthermore, a person can have a secondary preference for one of the remaining pairs, which will also mold their personality, with minor characteristics associated with that trait. This is important because understanding this process is understanding how the "code" of a type in Jung actually translates to a series of small groups that exist because of the way the functions are positioned. They're intercorrelated and essentially mean the same thing.

Let's pick for example, a person with dominating F (Feeling), auxiliary N (Intuition) preference and Introverted character. The dominance of of Feeling gives this person a Rational character which for the sake of consistency with everything else, we'll assign the letter J to. This is an INFJ. We already went over each individual letter, so what information can we extract from this combination of letters, in groups of two?
FJ - Dominating Feeling.
NJ - Secondary Intuition.
IJ - Introverted Rational
IF - Introverted Feeling (Fi) type
IN - Introverted Intuitive (Ni) type.

These groups are all have their own characteristics which are shared by all members, and all have been discussed by Jungs as independent groups. A personality type is how these groups combine and interact to make something unique. Why does an INFJ have a preference for Fi over Ni in Jung? Because what separates an INFJ from an INFP is having primary feeling, which works differently from secondary feeling and has the rational traits associated with it. They can't exist in discordance with one another. Compare it with MBTI functions, in which the groups and their meanings are different.
FJ - Extraverted Feeling (Judging types extravert their primary judging function, which in MBTI means is mainly how they interact with the outside)
NJ - Introverted Intuition (Judging types introvert their primary perceiving functiony yadda yadda yadda)
IJ - Dominant function is Introverted Perceiving
IF - Either Fi dominant or Fe auxiliary (not much in common)
IN - Either Ni dominant or Ne auxilairy (again, not much in common)

You can see a major difference between the correspondance between functions and groups and therefore dichotomies between the two models. The MBTI has vastly different implications about what each of the groups have in common with one another, that can make it seem like there's a hierarchy of similarity and some arbitrary differences between types. (ENTJs lead with judging, but INTJs lead with perceiving, giving them theoretically, different characteristics which were not expressed in those typed through dichotomeis). This is important because Socionics is much closer to the Jungian model than the MBTI model. It's a lot more specific of course and adds many dichotomies and weird subgroups of its own, but on a fundamental level the functions translate more directly to the dichotomies and the subgroups have shared strenghts (All ENs have 4D Ne, All EFs have 4D Fe, etc). Different systems will yield different results.

I don't see evidence pro or against the existance of functions. Assuming something is false until proven true is just as much as a belief of the opposite, that's what it means to be certain of someone uncertain. Science doesn't tell us what is true, just what has been able to proved with our current tools and methods. And even then we can never take it for granted, because there might just be a new discovery that disproves what was previously held as truth. My interpretation of Jung has always been that they're not mechanisms as much as they're abstractions of the mind meant to illustrate our preferences towards certain types of information and activity. Strength and preference is relative, not something binary. In that perspective, I can see why Model A might make them seem to "neat" and organized. The mind is very chaotic, after all. But as I've discussed, and Model G elaborates on, type is often spectrum, and our resamblance towards a certain type is as meaningful as our differences. Two ILIs are not the same people, if we interpret this at the meta functional level, it means their functions aren't operating exactly the same, but there's enough similarities between them that makes them able to be grouped under the same type. I don't think we've peeled all the layers that explore the common ground among the divergence, there's so much more to it that we could add 50 different subcategories and it still wouldn't be enough to account for everyone. We're getting closer though, and getting too specific shouldn't be the goal, I think SHS is striking a nice balance.

The functions DON'T have a naturally dichotomous nature to them...that's a big error of MBTI and Socionics. That's just how they're recorded by amateur psychologists. In MBTI, the population who takes the test fit into a normal distribution for each dichotomy: this is true for dichotomous traits in psychometrics generally, and I believe it's true for Socionics too. Discrete types most likely DON'T exist: Socionics is likely wrong there, and I think it's a big mistake to not allow nuance.

What a person scores in terms of INXX should have no bearing on the XX part, but according to Socionics, if someone scores as a EII one day, and then a few weeks later, they're more extroverted, then should become IEE, not EIE. This is erroneous.

I'm not assuming that Socionics is false until proven true: I'm saying that it hasn't been proven true to my satisfaction (that I've seen no evidence for the claims), and I've seen a lot of evidence I believe to be pertinent which leans me towards me believing it is indeed false. But I'm forever open to being shown empirical data, and hopeful that those who have an interest consider other possibilities for what they believe they see.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The functions have a naturally dichotomous nature to them, N repels S and vice-versa, and T repels F and vice-versa.

These papers demonstrates what happens when continuous variables are dichotomized: Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L., 1990. Dichotomization of continuous variables: The implications for meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 75(3), p.334. (direct link to pdf file)

In many studies included in meta-analyses, the independent variable measure, the dependent variable measure, or both, have been artificially dichotomized, attenuating the correlation from its true value and resulting in (a) a downward distortion in the mean correlation and (b) an upward distortion in the apparent real variation of correlations across studies. We present (a) exact corrections for this distortion for the case in which only one of the variables has been dichotomized and (b) methods for making approximate corrections when both variables have been artificially dichotomized. These approximate corrections are shown to be quite accurate for most research data. Methods for weighting the resulting corrected correlations in meta-analysis are presented. These corrections make it possible for meta-analysis to yield approximately unbiased estimates of mean population correlations and their standard deviations despite the initial distortion in the correlations from individual studies.

Maxwell, S.E. and Delaney, H.D., 1993. Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological bulletin, 113(1), p.181. (direct link to pdf file)

Despite pleas from methodologists, researchers often continue to dichotomize continuous predictor variables. The primary argument against this practice has been that it underestimates the strength of relationships and reduces statistical power. Although this argument is correct for relationships involving a single predictor, a different problem can arise when multiple predictors are involved. Specifically, dichotomizing 2 continuous independent variables can lead to false statistical significance. As a result, the typical justification for using a median split as long as results continue to be statistically significant is invalid, because such results may in fact be spurious. Thus, researchers who dichotomize multiple continuous predictor variables not only may lose power to detect true predictor-criterion relationships in some situations but also may dramatically increase the probability of Type I errors in other situations.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The MBTI is offered as a "type indicator" on the assumption that it can classify individuals into 1 of 16 qualitatively different types, formed by combination of the four dichotomous preferences In some respects, the validity of this typology is the central question in the evaluation of the instrument If qualitatively distinct types cannot be demonstrated, then either Jung's theory is wrong, or the MBTI fails to operationalize it adequately In the absence of evidence for the typology, the instrument becomes merely a series of scales whose information is reduced, rather than increased, by dichotomous classifications, the characteristics that set It apart from countless other personality instruments vanish, and it must be evaluated and used in a more traditional context MBTI theory specifies three levels at which distinctive typological characteristics should be seen in qualitative differences between opposed preferences, in the identification of a dominant function through the use of the El and JP scales, and in statistical interactions among preferences on external criteria The first issue concerns the validity of dichotomizing preference scores. Although most trait psychologists adopt the language of types in discussing individuals (contrasting, e g , introverts and extraverts), this is generally done as a convenient way of saying "above average on a normally distributed trait" or "below average " Jung himself appears to adopt this position m some of his wntings, admitting that there are intermediate positions between pure introversion and pure extraversion, in which individuals are "influenced as much from within as from without" (1923/1971, p 516) The authors of the MBTI, however, have adopted the interpretation that types are mutually exclusive groups of people, and that the cutting point between them is not arbitrary, but a true zero point. The most persuasive evidence for this would be a clear bimodal distribution of preference scores. None of the MBTI indices shows bimodallty, a point which Stricker and Ross (1964a) held against them.

An alternative interpretation of the nature of types points to a more subtle form of discontinuity, in which external correlates (or regression coefficients) vary for the two types (Hicks, 1984, Mendelsohn et al, 1982). The manual provides some studies showing such disparities in the relations between external criteria and opposite preferences For example, when grade-point average is plotted against EI scores, there appears to be a jump at the zero point, with introverts showing higher grades. The effect, however, is extremely subtle, and the authors admit that "for such small differences to be visible, samples of 4,000-5,000 are needed" (Myers & McCaulley, 1985, p 158) DeVito (1985) concludes that the evidence provided by the manual on this issue is "weak". A second typological characteristic that must be addressed concerns the JP index This preference is intended to show which of the two types of functions— judging or perceiving—is favored m dealing with the external world, in combination with the EI preference, it determines the dominant and auxiliary functions specified in Jung's theory Individuals classified as ENTJ (i.e., Extraverted, Intuitive, Thinking, and Judging) emphasize the judging function of Thinking m the external world, as Extraverts, they would have Thinking as the dominant function and Intuition as the auxiliary INTJs (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, and Judging individuals) would also show a preference for Thinking in dealing with the external world, but because they are Introverts, this would be their auxiliary function. The distinction between auxiliary and dominant functions is important in Jungian theory, and forms the major rationale for the JP index It is therefore surprising that so few studies have attempted to validate it Myers and McCaulley noted that "according to theory, the dominant function will show a clearer preference [i.e., a higher preference score] than will the auxiliary" (1985, p 58), but admitted that "scores for the dominant are greater than those for the auxiliary in only about half the types" (p 60)—as one would expect from chance.

Third, if the 16 types represent unique configurations of attitudes and preferences, as MBTI theory holds, there should be evidence of differences between types above and beyond that attributable to the four preferences themselves. Although other interpretations are possible (Block & Ozer, 1982), most researchers have interpreted this to mean that there must be theoretically meaningful and statistically significant interaction effects as well as main effects (Mendelsohn et al , 1982, Weiss, Mendelsohn, & Feimer, 1982). As Hicks (1985) noted, "without evidence for interactions there is no evidentiary basis for a 16-box matrix of distinct types" (p 13) Hicks (1984) herself failed to demonstrate predicted interactions, and Stricker and Ross (1964a) found no evidence of interaction effects in analyses of academic aptitude and performance measures. They recommended further study of this question using "other kinds of vanables, particularly those from the personality sphere" (p 69). Finally, it might be noted that scale development apparently disregarded the hypothesized typological structure If the types are qualitatively distinct, one might need to create different scales to measure Thinking-Feeling (and Sensation-Intuition) in extraverts and in introverts Instead, the indices were developed as four independent scales, with Item selection pooled across all different types.

(McCrae, R.R. and Costa Jr, P.T., 1989. Reinterpreting the Myers‐Briggs type indicator from the perspective of the five‐factor model of personality. Journal of personality, 57(1), pp.17-40.) (direct link to pdf file)

[Tallmo]

The reality of personality is that it's so complex, ever-changing and defined not just by nature and genetics, but also experience and environment that even the most scientific of systems still only works in slight inclinations and approximations with its predictions, because everyone is so different from one another. It seems like there's very little constant and a lot that's variable in our personality, whatever labels we carry with ourselves don't usually say what we do as much as it says what we're inclined to do given the known trends. In Socionics theory there is a lot of idealization, but also a lot of observation, which has resulted in models that attempt to add more nuance to types through layers explaining the differences within them, pushing the theory further from hard archetypes we fit into and more towards a complex spectrum of traits and preferences that can vary with time. The biggest example of this is Gulenko's studies, which have added DCHN, function accentuations and states to explain not just why it's not just possible and common to not fit the perfect archetypes, but also why certains parts of our personality change with time.

One of the main purposes of using types is the discovery of order in the otherwise chaotic psyche. Jung found typical structures in the psyche and this is a huge discovery because now you have something permanent to orient yourself by when analyzing people. It's an "objective psychology". I'm just saying that the fact that "everyone is so different" is not an argument against using types (8 or 16), because a structure has been found that is the same and varies in typical ways. Maybe it's a matter of perspective but I don't think that Jung/ Socionics should be considered "personality types", but rather deeply rooted structures that define our consciousness and cognition in a fundamental way. I find it very practical (like Jung also said). Like when I meet new people I make a note on their type because then I sortof know what to expect on a general level, regardless of all individual psychology that I might not know anything about.

[Not A Communist Shill]

"My relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now, that gives you all the necessary data for a good diagnosis." - maybe Socionics is just a little bit like a cult...

[on a peaceful hiatus]

"My relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things.

Obviously a logical type...

The problem with the functions is they are too wishy washy in their definitions

[Not A Communist Shill]

Obviously a logical type...

The problem with the functions is they are too wishy washy in their definitions

He sounds like he would have type himself as an INTP there, although I typed him IEI last time I thought about it.

[Rusal]

Obviously a logical type..

If a logical type can admit that their understanding of Ni after a decade of study is 'chaotic' in their mind...

[Sol]

IR worked. So valued functions and hence both variants of functions are accepted as the idea.
Until IR was not noticed - Socionics was not accepted by me. Either it's a magic, or rational objectivity. I prefer 2nd explanation.
20 years of typing and IR is still noticed as significant factor for who and for what I like.

I know about MBTI followers who keep wrong model for half of types and can't even to notice this. It's hard to understand the difference without IR, even in yourself.