We approach this system in two different ways, and it is ironically explainable through the system itself. As a Ti leading type, you make sense of the system and weigh whether or not your understanding of the system lines up with your principles on how things should work, whereas I am a Te auxillary type, meaning that I accept the system as it is with the information it provides and play the game so long as it doesn't stray from reality. Therefore, Ti types in general are more distrustful of systems that do not resonate with their logical principles and understanding, which is itself good and bad, for it is good to approach things with skepticism, but it is bad to shun a system that has been handcrafted by people who probably have much more information and expertise than you do at the present time. Similarly, there is good and bad to Te types, as with Te, we accept the system as it is and employ it, which is good and objective, but we also have a habit of robotically following systems we believe hold veracity, and that is bad, to be without some healthy dose of skepticism. The point is that to discredit an entire system that has been built on the foundation of some (though questionable) empirical studies along with professionals in this field due to your own personal comprehension of the system can be foolish.
Heh a model is just a model, not the truth. Doesn't mean I discredit absolutely everything in the system. I also don't just use my own personal ideas, I heavily borrow from other scientific research, things that made a lot of sense to me. Yes I did draw my own personal views from all of that, I'm just saying I didn't start from nothing. Relying on scientific research also involves expertise. Maybe more expertise than what a few russian socionists ever had. So overall I don't see myself as doing anything foolish
But yeah we view systems stuff differently.
I'm trying to say that the label is based off the theoretical model that Jung and his followers postulated, and that the control group that would be tested would not be of the right type to describe said theoretical model.
Yeah, though your thought experiment is still not really making much sense to me. Either a model is being made based on the observations and then this resulting model (from the ENTj data) is just different from the original one - which doesn't mean it's worse - or it would be noticed that the group of people are of a different type according to the original model and then it's a non-issue. If it's not noticed then that doesn't say a lot of nice things about the validity of the method used to determine type
![Stick out tongue :p :p]()
It would basically sound like subjective nonsense.
So I don't see your thought experiment supporting the idea that one set of descriptions/type profiles is worse than the other set. (It may still be worse but not because of whatever model is used to explain it)
The reason why we condense these into only 16 different boxes is because it is feasible to justify that every individual is in one of the boxes or another, and that within those boxes are more explanations for various idiosyncrasies such as subtypes and quirks. The 16 type system was built to include each individual according to the assessment of 8 components of the human psyche.
The idiosyncrasies should be explained by things outside the narrow type model. Subtypes stuff isn't going to solve all that.
You aren't really just using 16 boxes anyway, you're into enneagram too... Enneagram just doesn't have confusing notation. If socionics named functions different from MBTI functions and especially if it wasn't declared to have some jungian roots, maybe you would treat it as a different system then
![Stick out tongue :p :p]()
Think about that.
Just had a bit of a thought, the SLI's description of lead Si is said to have been characterized by apparent inactivity and laziness, an unwillingness to achieve goals, to surround oneself in a familiar environment.
Uhh MBTI Si does stray much further from original Jungian Si than this. So explain it based on the American society?
Yup, lol. When Ni mediates different types of information... it focuses on linking them to its current system in order to make inferences that could be used to predict dynamics, often within human relations, Fe.
I see. Guess in my case being soc-last doesn't help
![Smile :) :)]()
Or just my Fe is too crappy compared to Ti
![Stick out tongue :p :p]()
(In either of the two systems)
Private (especially ESTP's - only with those they care about in some way). Public persona would be important with the caveat that there would have to be some signs of truth (especially for the Beta introverts).
I'm not really into "persona"... what you say about beta introverts makes more sense
Petty things... different habits. Though, my ISTP friend has been a lot better with social interactions since; he's now a high school teacher. You could send me a PM me if you have any other questions.
Sure thanks, if I think of something I'll msg you
![Smile :) :)]()