The beta quadra

[Alea_iacta_est]

From the looks of this thread, it appears some people have a problem with different models being used to look at things in different ways - as if there should be only one way to look at something. Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but we've been over this a million times in this forum. The definitions are different. People know that. Big deal.

So you agree with me that the two systems look at things in different ways then? For that is how I interpreted your statement. My entire point was that the reason the functions are described differently is because of how the two systems view types externally or internally, not that the functions are different, but why they are different.

 

[Jaguar]

Yes, I agree.

And this has already been covered.

Socionics puts more emphasis of "Jish" qualities on Judging functions, regardless of whether they're extroverted.

This then makes types that have a dominant introverted Judging function sound more "Jish" in Socionics than in MBTI.

And it makes types that have a dominant introverted Perceiving function sound more "Pish" in Socionics than MBTI.

And, lastly, each theorist emphasizes different things they believe to be true about the functions.

This exists within the "MBTI" world, between different theorists.

It exists within the Socionics world, between Socionics theorists.

And it exists between "MBTI" theorists and Socionics theorists.

And, lastly, it exists between Jung and all of them.

That doesn't mean, tho, that when they're trying to describe Extroverted Sensing, that they're not trying to describe the same thing.

They may emphasize different things about it, they may disagree about certain things about it, but they're still trying to describe the same thing.

10 Different Painters + Same Scene = 10 Different Paintings

Some will be more alike than others, some will be better than others, some will focus on things other didn't even paint.

Regardless, the underlying scene was the same.

Our job is to figure out which painters were most insightful and accurate, and what was insightful and accurate about what they painted.

You're looking for simple. I read your other posts in this thread. I don't have a problem if 186 type models exist. But you would.
It's not "our job" to figure out who is most insightful. You can either use a framework or not, and if you don't like it, hell, go create one yourself.

Now that I've wasted my time on this old nonsense, I don't have any time left to go read highlander's thread on some new system.

I have to go pick up a prescription for my ISTJ father who has 'no interest in achieving anything'.
Catch you later.

I've learned Socionics.

Kindergarten level doesn't count.

 

[infinite]

Listening to ISTPs when it comes to discussing concepts is like listening to an NFJ about how to build a house.

Not saying some NFJs couldn't tell you a thing or two, but they surely aren't who I'd go to first.

Next time I need my oil changed, I'll give you ring.

That's bad stereotyping.

The people here are too smart to believe this bullshit.

It's not bullshit; for anyone interested as to which post I was referring to, where I refuted it, see this post (mainly where it talks about liver vs lung stuff).

Hate to ruin a good story with the facts, but:

I don't think I'm the only one who sees that you're not being that logical about these claims

But, where's the facts? I did not name anyone there. I was speaking in general.

So, it's in your mind only.

It's not ad hominem to call bullshit what it is.

Try making realistic, worthwhile claims, and not just troll posts, and they won't be called out for being precisely what they are.

You are clearly emotionally attached to your idea on functions. That's why you keep doing ad hominems instead of staying with detached analysis.

 

[Zarathustra]

You're looking for simple.

Mm...

Not exactly.

I'm looking for insight, accuracy, and truth.

I read your other posts in this thread.

This started in another thread.

And arguments laid out there have not been articulated here.

I don't have a problem if 186 type models exist. But you would.

Not necessarily.

I would rather have one, or three or four ACCURATE, INSIGHTFUL models than 186 shitty ones.

Also, I would rather have three or four really good ones than 93 so-so ones, and 98 pieces of shit.

But, to be completely honest, this is neither here nor there, cuz it doesn't come close to addressing the crux of my argument, nor why I make it.

It's not "our job" to figure out who is most insightful.

That's fine if you don't want to take up that goal.

I think it's a worthwhile one.

You can either use a framework or not...

Yes, and if you use a shitty one, then you use a shitty one.

...and if you don't like it, hell, go create one yourself.

We all already do this in a sense, anyway, as we all have our own interpretations of everything we study.

Now that I've wasted my time on this old nonsense, I don't have any time left to go read highlander's thread on some new system.

I have to go pick up a prescription for my ISTJ father who has 'no interest in achieving anything'.

Not the definition or profile I chose to use.

If you want to use the shittier ones, that's your decision.

Catch you later

Which reminds me: you never answered about the TeSi description I did provide.

If you ask me, the one I did provide is perfectly compatible with "MBTI"'s version of TeSi/STJs.

Kindergarten level doesn't count.

I've yet to see a single thing you or anybody else has mentioned that I didn't already know, so either we're all a bunch of kindergartners, or yall should start talking about these amazing insights you learned in first and second grade that I'm not already aware of.

 

[infinite]

Funny how two ISTp's know better about function theory than an INTJ. I should be the one laughing here.

Heh.

Btw actually I'm ISTP only in MBTI but I'm not ISTp in socionics. Why are you ISTp there, do you relate to Delta quadra more than Beta or is it the socionics Si and Te functions or something else? Just curious. Me personally, I relate to socionics Ti and Se more than the Si/Te stuff and Delta values aren't really me either.

Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals.

Which profile is that one line taken from?

As with any profile, some are better, and some are worse, than others.

You really didn't get into socionics too deep. This is standard socionics Si. Not taken from a profile, it's taken from the description of the socionics Si definition.

Actually, noone's making the argument that they're not.

Right, the argument is about compatibility. But that's what [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] meant anyway. That's also what I'm talking about.


[MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION] some of your posts here took my interest, I will respond to you in the MBTI vs socionics thread where it's more on-topic.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Alea_iacta_est some of your posts here took my interest, I will respond to you in the MBTI vs socionics thread where it's more on-topic.

Great.

 

[jixmixfix]

Heh.

Btw actually I'm ISTP only in MBTI but I'm not ISTp in socionics. Why are you ISTp there, do you relate to Delta quadra more than Beta or is it the socionics Si and Te functions or something else? Just curious. Me personally, I relate to socionics Ti and Se more than the Si/Te stuff and Delta values aren't really me either.

It's what I relate to the most in socionics after getting into the theory and reading the descriptions of the 8 functions. I also don't get along well with people from the beta quadra personally, and I'm definitely not "duals" with ENFJs "conflict" sounds like a better fit.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

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.

 

[Jaguar]

Right, the argument is about compatibility. But that's what [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] meant anyway.

Correct.

 

[jixmixfix]

Ah, I see. I guess we are definitely not the same Socionics type as I tend to like ENFj's.

What sociotype are you? my guess would be ESTP.

 

[jixmixfix]

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.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

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 [MENTION=21198]infinity-[/MENTION] 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.

 

[jixmixfix]

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.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

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.

 

[jixmixfix]

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.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

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.

 

[jixmixfix]

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).

 

[infinite]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

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.

 

[infinite]

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.