User Tag List

First 122021222324 Last

Results 211 to 220 of 265

Thread: The beta quadra

  1. #211
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    It might also help to alleviate some description problems by realizing the place from which Socionics was born, which was Lithuania under the USSR. Since the Soviet Union was essentially in a nihilistic atmosphere for the majority of its existence in the social sphere, it is not surprising to see that some of these profiles do not line up with the American Stereotypes and perhaps even some of Jung's ideas of types. Just a thought.
    I actually agree with you on how MBTI focuses more on the inner self/motivation, while socionics focuses more on the "outer" or third person perspectives. However the idea that an IxxP in MBTI is an IXXJ in socionics is flawed because the functions do not aline with each other that way given their conflicting perspectives thus any sociotype can be any MBTI type in reality. If I were to give a direct translation between the two systems my guess would be something like an MBTI IXXP = 50% EXXP, 50% IXXP in socionics. Socionics actually splits the MBTI types into different types, that is just my own personal speculation though.

  2. #212
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    I actually agree with you on how MBTI focuses more on the inner self/motivation, while socionics focuses more on the "outer" or third person perspectives. However the idea that an IxxP in MBTI is an IXXJ in socionics is flawed because the functions do not aline with each other that way given their conflicting perspectives thus any sociotype can be any MBTI type in reality. If I were to give a direct translation between the two systems my guess would be something like an MBTI IXXP = 50% EXXP, 50% IXXP in socionics. Socionics actually splits the MBTI types into different types, that is just my own personal speculation though.
    Personal speculation is all we can do with the lack of evidence.

    I believe that the problem of translation is best solved by subtypes. The ILI-Ni, for instance, will probably align more with the Perceiving traits in MBTI while the ILI-Te will probably align more with the Judging traits in MBTI. Therefore, with individuals such as yourself who test as ISTP in MBTI, the more you test as perceiving, the more likely it is you will test as SLI since subtypes haven't been that expanded upon, meaning that descriptions and type analyses would be poised more toward the dominant function, the SLI-Si, a more reserved, perceiver-ish MBTI ISTJ, when in reality it might be just as easily plausible that you are an LSI-Se, who embodies the perceiving traits of MBTI more than the Judging traits portrayed in Socionics descriptions. Another beautiful thing we have to account for is the plausibility of the initial type profiles being based off of large scale mistypes. Remember this chart that @infinity- used in one of these threads? If we take a look at the MBTI INTJ, we find that the MBTI profile mostly corresponds to the ENTj and the ESTp in Socionics, but there is something else that might be affecting this statistic. One of the most infamous mistypes among MBTI types is ENTJ typing as INTJ, and at the same time one of Socionics's most infamous mistypes is ENTj and ESTp confusion. This leaves several possible routes, A. That both systems are right and that INTJs in MBTI are extroverts in Socionics, B. That MBTI's descriptions are wrong and based off of mistypes (at least the INTJ profile), or C. That Socionics's descriptions are wrong and based off of mistypes.

    The amount of possible misconstruction is incredible, but we are powerless to do anything due to the fact that we lack evidence.

  3. #213
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Personal speculation is all we can do with the lack of evidence.

    If we take a look at the MBTI INTJ, we find that the MBTI profile mostly corresponds to the ENTj and the ESTp in Socionics, but there is something else that might be affecting this statistic. One of the most infamous mistypes among MBTI types is ENTJ typing as INTJ, and at the same time one of Socionics's most infamous mistypes is ENTj and ESTp confusion. This leaves several possible routes, A. That both systems are right and that INTJs in MBTI are extroverts in Socionics, B. That MBTI's descriptions are wrong and based off of mistypes (at least the INTJ profile), or C. That Socionics's descriptions are wrong and based off of mistypes.

    The amount of possible misconstruction is incredible, but we are powerless to do anything due to the fact that we lack evidence.
    This is a very good point and I definitely think much more people in MBTI type as introverts than they actually are when you at least compare it to Socionics. For Example a Socionics ENTP Ti subtype would have a 50% chance typing as an INTP in MBTI however a socionics ENTP Ne subtype would most likely type as an ENTP in mbti due to how MBTI put it's emphasis on how much people use their "strongest" function. Socionics views itself from the third person perspective thus if you use your secondary function more than your primary function it still won't matter, you simply have a "secondary" subtype label attached to your type name.

  4. #214
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    This is a very good point and I definitely think much more people in MBTI type as introverts than they actually are when you at least compare it to Socionics. For Example a Socionics ENTP Ti subtype would most likely type as an INTP in MBTI however a socionics ENTP Ne subtype would most likely type as an ENTP in mbti due to how MBTI put it's emphasis on how much people use their "strongest" function. Socionics views itself from the third person perspective thus if you use your secondary function more than your primary function it won't matter, you simply have a "secondary" subtype label attached to your type name.
    Agreed. I think at the current time, the two systems are compatible, and primarily I think Socionics would highly benefit from JCF's internal view of Jung's initial ideas for his cognitive functions, so that strange associations like "bodily health" to Si might actually encompass seeing the potential, power, and physical and mental limitations in ones' self as well. Socionics needs to show more than one of the blades to the swiss army knives that are the functions, and when that happens, I believe we will see a better correlation/unification between the two systems.

    Also, it would help if the Socionics type descriptions evolved with society and didn't stay in the Soviet dark age that was rife with negatively expressed types.

  5. #215
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Agreed. I think at the current time, the two systems are compatible, and primarily I think Socionics would highly benefit from JCF's internal view of Jung's initial ideas for his cognitive functions, so that strange associations like "bodily health" to Si might actually encompass seeing the potential, power, and physical and mental limitations in ones' self as well. Socionics needs to show more than one of the blades to the swiss army knives that are the functions, and when that happens, I believe we will see a better correlation/unification between the two systems.

    Also, it would help if the Socionics type descriptions evolved with society and didn't stay in the Soviet dark age that was rife with negatively expressed types.
    So I guess this means that I am most likely a socionics ISTp Si subtype if I test as ISTP in MBTI or would I be ISTp logical?. I agree socionics has too much "B.S" attached to it, that's why it has such a negative public view but the theory itself in general is quite valid.

  6. #216
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    So I guess this means that I am most likely a socionics ISTp Si subtype if I test as ISTP in MBTI. I agree socionics has too much "B.S" attached to it, that's why it has such a negative public view but the theory itself in general is quite valid.
    Actually, to stay aligned with Jung's ideas on the functions, if you test as an ISTP in dichotomy and have a high perceiving score, then you will probably type into Socionics as SLI-Si while LSI-Se is still an equal or greater probability of actually being your type due to the fact that it shares the cognitive functions derived from Jung's original work that constitute the TiSe type. If you test as an ISTP in dichotomy with a low perceiving score, however, then you will probably type as either SLI-Te or LSI-Ti, with more emphasis on the latter due to the aforementioned reason, in my opinion that attempts to bridge the two systems into the one system that Jung envisioned.

    Eventually, I would hope that Socionics and JCF develop to where the types are congruent with their respective functions, i.e. ISTP = LSI-Ti or LSI-Se, ISTJ = SLI-Si or SLI-Te, but at this current point in time the olden stereotypes of the LSI being the venerated, rigid, soldier and the SLI being the self-satisfied stalwart taint the system's roots.

  7. #217
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Actually, to stay aligned with Jung's ideas on the functions, if you test as an ISTP in dichotomy and have a high perceiving score, then you will probably type into Socionics as SLI-Si while LSI-Se is still an equal or greater probability of actually being your type due to the fact that it shares the cognitive functions derived from Jung's original work that constitute the TiSe type. If you test as an ISTP in dichotomy with a low perceiving score, however, then you will probably type as either SLI-Te or LSI-Ti, with more emphasis on the latter due to the aforementioned reason, in my opinion that attempts to bridge the two systems into the one system that Jung envisioned.

    Eventually, I would hope that Socionics and JCF develop to where the types are congruent with their respective functions, i.e. ISTP = LSI-Ti or LSI-Se, ISTJ = SLI-Si or SLI-Te, but at this current point in time the olden stereotypes of the LSI being the venerated, rigid, soldier and the SLI being the self-satisfied stalwart taint the system's roots.
    Hmmm I always saw myself an MBTI ISTP and an SLI (logical).

  8. #218
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    What sociotype are you? my guess would be ESTP.
    Mmmm why's that your guess? I have a "type me" thread on here and I got typed ISTP there by several members. I'm interested in your thoughts on this and if it was to get too long for this thread, you can write about it in my type thread instead.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    It might also help to alleviate some description problems by realizing the place from which Socionics was born, which was Lithuania under the USSR. Since the Soviet Union was essentially in a nihilistic atmosphere for the majority of its existence in the social sphere, it is not surprising to see that some of these profiles do not line up with the American Stereotypes and perhaps even some of Jung's ideas of types. Just a thought.
    How is a description wrong if it actually describes a certain kind of people? That is however separate from how you explain it with a system. So the question here isn't necessarily which descriptions are wrong - though sure, if you can't support it with observations then it can be wrong - but which system needs fixing and how/why.

    Of course I'm a die-hard reductionist, which means that if a level of explanation doesn't have the connection to lower levels of explanation (can't be "reduced"), then the concepts and explanations of the system aren't really that great... Why I'm still here, it's not because I expect these systems to be perfect - not a realistic expectation right now. I'm just saying I have a pretty critical eye for them.


    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    I actually agree with you on how MBTI focuses more on the inner self/motivation, while socionics focuses more on the "outer" or third person perspectives. However the idea that an IxxP in MBTI is an IXXJ in socionics is flawed because the functions do not aline with each other that way given their conflicting perspectives thus any sociotype can be any MBTI type in reality. If I were to give a direct translation between the two systems my guess would be something like an MBTI IXXP = 50% EXXP, 50% IXXP in socionics. Socionics actually splits the MBTI types into different types, that is just my own personal speculation though.
    I actually agree on your idea about "splitting" types. Now explaining why's that, isn't as easy, though I could give some examples if anyone's interested


    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Agreed. I think at the current time, the two systems are compatible, and primarily I think Socionics would highly benefit from JCF's internal view of Jung's initial ideas for his cognitive functions, so that strange associations like "bodily health" to Si might actually encompass seeing the potential, power, and physical and mental limitations in ones' self as well. Socionics needs to show more than one of the blades to the swiss army knives that are the functions, and when that happens, I believe we will see a better correlation/unification between the two systems.
    You are using the assumption here that there are actually eight and exactly eight mental functions, right? Why?

    As for seeing potential, that's Ne, I've never seen it associated with Si.

  9. #219
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Mmmm why's that your guess? I have a "type me" thread on here and I got typed ISTP there by several members. I'm interested in your thoughts on this and if it was to get too long for this thread, you can write about it in my type thread instead.




    How is a description wrong if it actually describes a certain kind of people? That is however separate from how you explain it with a system. So the question here isn't necessarily which descriptions are wrong - though sure, if you can't support it with observations then it can be wrong - but which system needs fixing and how/why.

    Of course I'm a die-hard reductionist, which means that if a level of explanation doesn't have the connection to lower levels of explanation (can't be "reduced"), then the concepts and explanations of the system aren't really that great... Why I'm still here, it's not because I expect these systems to be perfect - not a realistic expectation right now. I'm just saying I have a pretty critical eye for them.




    I actually agree on your idea about "splitting" types. Now explaining why's that, isn't as easy, though I could give some examples if anyone's interested




    You are using the assumption here that there are actually eight and exactly eight mental functions, right? Why?

    As for seeing potential, that's Ne, I've never seen it associated with Si.
    Potential as in the power of something, as in Potential Energy, not the potential in respect to the future, its physical limitations. Sensing in Socionics is defined by seeing the power of things.

    The description is wrong because it would be describing the wrong type of people for a specific type. If we took all the ENTjs in the world and studied them and used those studies to build the INTp profile, then we would be wrong about what INTps are actually like because all we have is a bunch of ENTjs, and personality type is a tricky thing to pin. Also, when you have a bunch of negatively expressed types that are unhealthy, you tend to have unhealthy personality descriptions along with it rather than personality descriptions that match the base type theoretically. An example of this corruption is the glorification of the ILE and SLE who thrive in situations with little structure, persevering with optimism and sheer will, with the simultaneous critical eye towards the IxxP temperament, due to their melancholic attitude and skepticism, and the love of structure.

    We are all using the assumption that there are actually eight and exactly eight mental functions, because that is what the whole system and BOTH systems are built around, it is what Jung used to describe his psychological types. If you don't believe they exist, go play with the astrological dichotomy-based testing to figure out your stereotypical type and save the rest of us the trouble.

  10. #220
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Potential as in the power of something, as in Potential Energy, not the potential in respect to the future, its physical limitations. Sensing in Socionics is defined by seeing the power of things.
    Okay


    The description is wrong because it would be describing the wrong type of people for a specific type. If we took all the ENTjs in the world and studied them and used those studies to build the INTp profile, then we would be wrong about what INTps are actually like because all we have is a bunch of ENTjs, and personality type is a tricky thing to pin.
    If this INTp profile correctly described those people you called ENTj's, that is, it describes actual observations according to reality, then what's wrong about it? The system used to explain the observations?


    Also, when you have a bunch of negatively expressed types that are unhealthy, you tend to have unhealthy personality descriptions along with it rather than personality descriptions that match the base type theoretically. An example of this corruption is the glorification of the ILE and SLE who thrive in situations with little structure, persevering with optimism and sheer will, with the simultaneous critical eye towards the IxxP temperament, due to their melancholic attitude and skepticism, and the love of structure.
    I don't see how skepticism or the love of structure is "worse" than the capability to thrive in chaos. This is your subjective interpretation of values, no?


    We are all using the assumption that there are actually eight and exactly eight mental functions, because that is what the whole system and BOTH systems are built around, it is what Jung used to describe his psychological types. If you don't believe they exist, go play with the astrological dichotomy-based testing to figure out your stereotypical type and save the rest of us the trouble.
    I believe something exists that's described by these systems (and other systems), what I don't believe is that there is necessarily exactly 8 functions. Just because there is three systems out there that use this assumption as the basis for their explanations, it doesn't make this assumption any more true. Does it for you?

    Also, leave astrology out of this. Do you really think that's the only other alternative anyway?

    Also note, how the idea that there's not just 8 functions, doesn't have to kill the whole point of these personality systems. (It just shows they are not perfect but we already know that.) Though maybe the point of them is different for you than for me.

Similar Threads

  1. Beta Quadra Video Examples
    By Stansmith in forum Socionics
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-01-2015, 05:36 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 11:42 AM
  3. Can anyone distinguish the Alpha Beta Gamma Delta archetypes for me...
    By Zangetshumody in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 10-26-2013, 01:15 PM
  4. The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta
    By Speed Gavroche in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 02-25-2012, 03:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO