Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #241  
Old 19/06/2008, 08:10 PM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

Anyone who hasn't should check out this site. http://socioniko.net/en/ It's very cool and informative.
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 20/06/2008, 03:18 AM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

Rejoice with me. I have a writing account.

http://www.fictionpress.com/u/617268/
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 20/06/2008, 10:42 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
No. And no. And no. When will you start to learn the basics, Kensi? Read this socionic type description, and then tell me if you still think it describes an ISFP with an IP temperament. Point out exactly which parts you find more ISFP than ISFJ, and remember to ignore the labels of the functions. Focus on how the ISFj's behaviour and attitudes are described:

ISFj according to Filatova

Ethical-Sensory Introvert
ESI – ISFj – Dreiser (Conservator)

Installation of the consciousness in the leading block: the ESI's conditions for normal life are found in the harmony of human relations, the observance of ethical norms and morals, cautious storage of traditions, and volitional efforts towards the retention and maintenance of this system of values.

Description of the Strong Functions:

Fi – As an introvert she is primarily orientated toward her own installations and stimulations. Her consciousness keynotes the norms of morals, the rules of hospitality, the need for conducting a definite mode of life, which, from her point of view, is the only one worthy.

Ethics of relations is her strongest function. She understands, from the earliest age, what is good and what is bad. As a moralist she considers it necessary that the laws of behavior, the moral norms, be clearly formulated and strictly observed.

Especially important to her are deemed the traditions and structure, which, throughout centuries, have been accumulated by humanity. She is confident that these traditions, and also the rituals that serve as necessary reference points, are there to help people in any situation in life. ESI assumes that these traditions must never be stored away or violated but with great care be transmitted from one generation to another.

She usually adheres to the norms of behavior and morals taken up in society. If she sees someone disregard them she may openly express negative judgment towards them. Considers herself obligated to fight the bad inclinations and defects of the people nearest to her. She can carry on with this firmly for a long time, using all resources accessible to her. The ESI is very emotional but usually forces herself to hide her feelings, in view of this she sometimes is perceived as steady, even cold, by strangers. The nearer someone gets to her the more her emotionality is revealed. If she is confident that the small circle of people, close to her, love and value her then she can feel completely happy.

It is generally very important that she has someone next to her to which she can readily dedicate herself, but in this case wishes that her efforts be valued, otherwise she can fall into depression, or even cause an argument. She remembers goodness, tries without fail to express appreciation towards those that are good to her, but she also remembers evil. In regards to such offenders ESI takes an irreconcilable position and tries at any cost to punish and take vengeance on them.

Emotionalism, in the ESI, is developed also in her love of art, especially of music. Frequently she loves to play a musical instrument, with pleasure attends concerts, and herself loves to sing.

Se – ESI conducts her moral program into life with the persistence of volitional sense. But, in general, it is difficult to recognize this installation at a close distance since in practice it is disguised by external conformity, she ably feels and comprehends to mood of another and their attitude towards what is occurring.

For a time she tries to tune, to exhibit delicacy, but eventually develops the tendency towards volitional pressure, especially in terms of putting her principles into practice against encountered obstacles. In such cases are developed the concealed (only at first glance) qualities of exacting demand and persistence. She is confident in her rightness. Finds it necessary to subordinate others to herself – through this she experiences a feeling of satisfaction but she does not openly demonstrate this.

Her strong sense is represented in her economic activity: she is zealous, honest and conscientious, especially in domestic circumstances. She generally keeps a lot of products in storage (i.e. buried, in a shed, garage). Always makes sure there are reserves. She makes sure that there is a minimum of waste, whether it is remaining floor panels or remainders of food products.

This thrift contributes to allow her to accumulate a sufficient means in order to buy a necessary quantity of articles in daily life, which symbolize welfare – gifts for others, household machines etc. She obtains everything via honest labor and scrupulous economy, not by reckless adventure or by dishonest mechanizations – such would contradict her moral principles.

Description of the Weak Functions:

Ne – The weakness of this function is developed in the fact that while the ESI is aware of the external manifestations of that occurring she badly visualizes the internal considerations.

So she finds it difficult to comprehend the internal world of another person. In view of this she usually very thoroughly selects her future husband by means of matching up his moral qualities with how they correspond to her requirements and having him explain the discrepancies.

It often occurs that she underestimates herself and her positive qualities, her conscience suffers, she considers herself insufficiently formed, capable, and/or talented. She responds very painfully to others observations in this matter.

Ti – In beginning any work, ESI collect and prepares material, attentively and scrupulously thinks over everything, and then acts energetically and decisively. However, the weakness of this function is developed in the fact that great expenditures of her time and resources are required in her preparatory work, and she is not characterized by the ability to easily, and naturally, make rational decisions. She also finds it difficult to prioritize and separate the main thing from the secondary: she works as much as possible and does not always commensurate what she’s doing with other plans, thus it often occurs that she overstrains herself.

ESI at Work and in the Home:

The ESI’s strong sense is noticeably manifested in the business sphere: her working place is wonderfully organized, each tool has its distinct place, nothing is ever scattered.

In regards to her work she is, as a rule, very responsible and exact, and she requires the same from others. She is intolerant to negligence and looseness. She may develop strictness towards those that badly manage their work. But if there are no reasons for dissatisfaction she prefers a soft and genuine style of contact.

After proving to be at the head of a collective, ESI feels a vast responsibility. Her weak intuition serves as the reason for her low self-esteem and also does not contribute to understanding the concealed possibilities of each of her colleagues: instead she remains more alert towards the negative possibilities with respect to herself.

She feels better being a non-formal leader, sharing responsibility with someone else.

Since ESI finds it difficult to forecast events, to see the distant prospect, she gives her primary attention to examining tactical missions, which she can successfully solve. She more easily works under stable conditions. Any uncertainty makes her nervous; she reserves time for decision-making as she does not like being liable for failures. Once a decision is accepted she acts peacefully and firmly in bringing the work to its end.

She uses her methods of conviction with respect to her coworkers, she appeals to a feeling of duty, conscientiousness, and honesty. She behaves peacefully and genuinely with others so long as they are not hostilely disposed towards her. In such cases she develops firmness and strictness in stating her position.

With respect to relationships she is honest, considerate, capable of deep selfless feeling. But if her partner betray her she will break relations. She does not pardon treachery.

The ESI’s moral program prioritizes concerns regarding her family’s surroundings. An impression is sometimes created that she surrounds herself, and a small circle of people close to her, with an invisible wall. Nothing is too much for these people. She literally serves them, can dedicate all her resources towards this and makes this the meaning of her life.

It sometimes occurs that by excessively offering her resources to others she is not able to make something necessary for herself. In such cases irritation and dissatisfaction are accumulate within her, these feelings are held within her for many months. Such prolonged stress may lead to unexpected explosions; she may begin to suspect close ones of dishonesty, may see in their activities a certain evil intent. In such situations it is necessary that others show her kindness, patience, and the willingness to move forward; this will help her return to her lost equilibrium.


Now you have.
So what is the MBTI equivalent of this?
__________________
Some Sort of Si + Fi valueing type.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 20/06/2008, 06:56 PM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmitri Lytov
Method 2 [of MB-Socionics conversion] What can we say? Such an approach leads to much greater misunderstanding. It does not only contradict to Jung – after all, Jung lived long ago, and there were many uncertainties in his typology and in his ides in general. But when we start comparing descriptions of the socionic types with the corresponding American descriptions, then we will find that ISFP (socionic) = ISFP (MBTT) and not ISFJ (MBTT), and the same rule is valid for the rest of sensory introverted types. The situation is more complicated with introverted intuitive types, but well, this rule is also invalid.
Here is a tidbit from Dmitri Lytov's "Introduction to Socionics".
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 26/06/2008, 09:48 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
Here is a tidbit from Dmitri Lytov's "Introduction to Socionics".
Thank-you for this post... this answers the question to some extent. This excerpt only talks about the descriptions attributed to the type and not the functional analysis of the type.

To anyone reading this...

The question to be begged is ....who's the idiot responsible for slotting in the wrong description to the wrong type?

The problem is averted in my honest opinion if the assessment is made on a functional basis. I hate dealing with beauracracies...it takes 'em so long to make the necessary changes. Also...this is quite stupid and systematically inconsistent that it applies only to the introverts and the rule below only for Sensory introverts......(but intuitive introvert type descriptions are even more messed up??)....like i said before stick with the functions...get to know them and the probabilities are on your side...the type descriptions are merely meant to be guides for people who cannot imagine how the functions are connected together.

Now Prom is an idiot in his communications cause he doesn't tell you or anyone what an ISFj for example is to him...is it the type description or is it the internal framework of functional energies....and you cannot make a correct transition from MBTI to Socionics or vice versa without knowing the answer to this question.
Originally Posted by Dmitri Lytov
But when we start comparing descriptions of the socionic types with the corresponding American descriptions, then we will find that ISFP (socionic) = ISFP (MBTT) and not ISFJ (MBTT), and the same rule is valid for the rest of sensory introverted types.
The situation is more complicated with introverted intuitive types, but well, this rule is also invalid.
__________________
Some Sort of Si + Fi valueing type.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 26/06/2008, 01:39 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi View Post
Now Prom is an idiot in his communications cause he doesn't tell you or anyone what an ISFj for example is to him...is it the type description or is it the internal framework of functional energies....
Both of course. But you simply have to accept that the functions in MBTT are not the same functions as those in Socionics. That's why you should not stick with the functions. You must accept the fact that a socionic ISFj is the same type as an MBTT ISFJ, and then find a way to understand the different functions in two different models so that you can see that they are the same type, despite the fact that they seem to be (but aren't) different types in a functional perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 26/06/2008, 02:14 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Both of course. But you simply have to accept that the functions in MBTT are not the same functions as those in Socionics. That's why you should not stick with the functions.
Rubbish. We don't have to do anything you say.
Quote:
You must accept the fact that a socionic ISFj is the same type as an MBTT ISFJ, and then find a way to understand the different functions in two different models so that you can see that they are the same type, despite the fact that they seem to be (but aren't) different types in a functional perspective.
Now even if they are..if they are the same. It makes little to no difference in the real world.

Socionics is a far more accurate model and someone may BELIEVE that they are ISFJ and for all intents and purposes ISFJ works for them in their lives. HOWEVER when one crosses over to socionics and they are not ISFj then it becomes all too apparent and their typing collapses like a house of cards.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 26/06/2008, 02:45 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Rubbish. We don't have to do anything you say.
It is not about the fact that I am saying it, it is about the fact that it happens to be the truth about the types in MBTT and Socionics. You can of course ignore the truth, but then you will become an idiot. Your choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Now even if they are..if they are the same. It makes little to no difference in the real world.
It makes all the difference between knowing the types or not knowing the types.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Socionics is a far more accurate model and someone may BELIEVE that they are ISFJ and for all intents and purposes ISFJ works for them in their lives. HOWEVER when one crosses over to socionics and they are not ISFj then it becomes all too apparent and their typing collapses like a house of cards.
So what? Your comment is utterly trivial and irrelevant. If they are not ISFjs they are of course not ISFJs, and that only means that they had mistyped themselves in MBTT.
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 26/06/2008, 03:42 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
It is not about the fact that I am saying it, it is about the fact that it happens to be the truth about the types in MBTT and Socionics. You can of course ignore the truth, but then you will become an idiot. Your choice.
Does one person have to be right and the other wrong?

Quote:
It makes all the difference between knowing the types or not knowing the types.
Yes and by re-examining their crossover that is a path to knowing their types. Socionics goes into much more depth on this sort of thing.

Quote:
So what? Your comment is utterly trivial and irrelevant. If they are not ISFjs they are of course not ISFJs, and that only means that they had mistyped themselves in MBTT.
It's quite crucial really. Simply because a person could believe themselves to be an xxxP type and hop over to socionics and assume then they are xxxp.( Even if they P-p is the same type. Same goes for J-j and not just the j/p switch) People being people mistype themselves and MB consultants mis type them too. This mistyping becomes all too apparent in socionics. Now what you are saying means that people will continue being mistyped, because you are assuming that MB is as accurate as socionics and that people should not re-examine their type in socionics and stick to that premise of their type. How will that impact on intertype relations and personal understanding if they assume a false premise of their correct type? It's up to you if you want to keep these things as a theory in peoples head or instead take into account for the purpose of real world scenarios.

People should always re-examine their type when crossing over to socionics, because yes even if theoretically it's the same type, people they are people and they make mistakes. They aren't some xxxP - p theory or some MBTI test or MB consultant they are first and foremost humans you know.

So it is far far far from triviality and it is extremely useful. As you know I accept that maybe the types (at least for sensors) are similar-in theory. But that is a theory which perhaps unfortunately doesn't work when applied to individuals and their circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 26/06/2008, 04:34 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Does one person have to be right and the other wrong?
If they contradict each other (one person saying "A", the other person saying "Not A"), then the answer is "yes". If they are not contradicting each other (one person saying "A", the other person saying "B"), then the answer is "no". In the latter case both could be right, both be wrong, or one right and the other wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Yes and by re-examining their crossover that is a path to knowing their types. Socionics goes into much more depth on this sort of thing.
No. Socionics does not go into this sort of thing. And most socionists are ignorant about it. Indirectly though, most socionists accept it -- with or without being aware that that is what they are doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
It's quite crucial really. Simply because a person could believe themselves to be an xxxP type and hop over to socionics and assume then they are xxxp.( Even if they P-p is the same type. Same goes for J-j and not just the j/p switch) People being people mistype themselves and MB consultants mis type them too.
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
This mistyping becomes all too apparent in socionics.
Yes. People mistype themselves just as much (probably more) in Socionics as in MBTT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Now what you are saying means that people will continue being mistyped, because you are assuming that MB is as accurate as socionics
MBTI tests are more accurate, or at least as accurate, as any socionic test. MBTT (the theory on the types) is false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
and that people should not re-examine their type in socionics and stick to that premise of their type.
Totally wrong. I have never said that. It is always quite possible that some people are mistyped in both systems, regardless of what type(s) they believe that they are. But people who believe that they are one type in MBTT and another type (with different result on the four dichotomies) must understand that have necessarily mistyped themselves in at least one of the two models.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
How will that impact on intertype relations and personal understanding if they assume a false premise of their correct type?
They will misunderstand and misidentify their intertype relations, and as a result they will get a totally incorrect view on the types.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
So it is far far far from triviality and it is extremely useful. As you know I accept that maybe the types (at least for sensors) are similar-in theory. But that is a theory which perhaps unfortunately doesn't work when applied to individuals and their circumstance.
It is not a theory. It is a necessary truth. It is simply a fact.
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 26/06/2008, 05:04 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
If they contradict each other (one person saying "A", the other person saying "Not A"), then the answer is "yes". If they are not contradicting each other (one person saying "A", the other person saying "B"), then the answer is "no". In the latter case both could be right, both be wrong, or one right and the other wrong.


No. Socionics does not go into this sort of thing. And most socionists are ignorant about it. Indirectly though, most socionists accept it -- with or without being aware that that is what they are doing.


Yes.


Yes. People mistype themselves just as much (probably more) in Socionics as in MBTT.


MBTI tests are more accurate, or at least as accurate, as any socionic test. MBTT (the theory on the types) is false.


Totally wrong. I have never said that. It is always quite possible that some people are mistyped in both systems, regardless of what type(s) they believe that they are. But people who believe that they are one type in MBTT and another type (with different result on the four dichotomies) must understand that have necessarily mistyped themselves in at least one of the two models.


They will misunderstand and misidentify their intertype relations, and as a result they will get a totally incorrect view on the types.


It is not a theory. It is a necessary truth. It is simply a fact.
Ok. What I am saying is that if someone believes themselves to be xxxP then they shouldn't assume themselves to be xxxp. Do we agree?

Also..idiosyncracies.. for instance username iannau tests MBTI INTP and socionics INTp (from socionics.com test) and has been typed INTP in person by MB practitioner. Therefore identifies with I N T P dichotomies but is a self-identifying ISTp. And for all intents and purposes I believe she is ISTp despite all this data. What are your thoughts on this?
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 26/06/2008, 05:50 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Ok. What I am saying is that if someone believes themselves to be xxxP then they shouldn't assume themselves to be xxxp. Do we agree?
Yes. To believe that you are an xxxP means that you identify with most of the things that are associated with irrationality in Socionics, and it means that you identify with either IP or EP as those "temperaments" are described in MBTT (and of course Socionics too). There's a lot of material on all of those aspects in the MBTT literature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Also..idiosyncracies.. for instance username iannau tests MBTI INTP and socionics INTp (from socionics.com test) and has been typed INTP in person by MB practitioner. Therefore identifies with I N T P dichotomies but is a self-identifying ISTp. And for all intents and purposes I believe she is ISTp despite all this data. What are your thoughts on this?
I know that iAnnau identifies ISTp in Socionics. I didn't know that she had tested and identifies with INTP in MBTT, but it doesn't make sense to identify with INTP in MBTT if you are an ISTp. It is totally obvious that the ISTp is the exact same type as ISTP in MBTT. Every type description confirms that type identity beyond reasonable doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 26/06/2008, 06:24 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Yes. To believe that you are an xxxP means that you identify with most of the things that are associated with irrationality in Socionics, and it means that you identify with either IP or EP as those "temperaments" are described in MBTT (and of course Socionics too). There's a lot of material on all of those aspects in the MBTT literature.
Yeah but i've seen those mistakes happen and try saying the above to all the people who have been given a type by the various methods.

Still even if people know all of the above information it's still possible to make a mistake anyway, or maybe actually be right. ie Labcoat identifies with the P part of P for Phenomenon (he said using that would identify him as a P when he is a J) and he types himself as a J and an INTj so even then apparently it happens.

Quote:
I know that iAnnau identifies ISTp in Socionics. I didn't know that she had tested and identifies with INTP in MBTT, but it doesn't make sense to identify with INTP in MBTT if you are an ISTp. It is totally obvious that the ISTp is the exact same type as ISTP in MBTT. Every type description confirms that type identity beyond reasonable doubt.
No she identifies with ISTP and ISTp type description on both systems except that everything else tells her contrary. The tests on both systems and the MB practitioner typing giving her of INTP this I am sure of. I am almost sure that she identifies with the N dichotomy too, I would have to search through my conversations with her to confirm this which I don't have time for at present.. like I say though I'm reasonably sure of this, but she does identify with ISTP and ISTp. I was just curious as to what you thought of there being so many sources pointing to the same type but all in error.
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 26/06/2008, 06:38 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
The tests on both systems and the MB practitioner typing giving her of INTP this I am sure of.
Only a rather incompetent MBTI practitioner would type her as INTP if she is really an ISTp. But of course there are many such bad typologists in the world. And they use only one or two typing methods, which makes them more likely to make typing mistakes. That I would type her as INTP in that situation if she was an ISTp is extremely unlikely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I am almost sure that she identifies with the N dichotomy too, I would have to search through my conversations with her to confirm this which I don't have time for at present.. like I say though I'm reasonably sure of this, but she does identify with ISTP and ISTp.
So basically you are saying that she totally confused, almost an idiot. I don't believe that she is so ignorant. You simply can't identify strongly with N and INTP if you are an ISTp. It is impossible to do that if you understand the theory and can read the literature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I was just curious as to what you thought of there being so many sources pointing to the same type but all in error.
Bad typologists and people who are unable to be objective about themselves are not that uncommon.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 26/06/2008, 07:08 PM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

I'm not so sure P=p and J=j. According to a lecture by Dmitri Lytov and at least one other source (here, I think), Myers' J/P dichotomy is a departure from Jung's theory of rational/irrational; in fact, she considered rational to be EJ/IP and irrational EP/IJ. Hence the functional differences betwen IJ and Ij, and IP and Ip. Therefore, how can they automatically translate?
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 26/06/2008, 07:46 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Only a rather incompetent MBTI practitioner would type her as INTP if she is really an ISTp. But of course there are many such bad typologists in the world. And they use only one or two typing methods, which makes them more likely to make typing mistakes. That I would type her as INTP in that situation if she was an ISTp is extremely unlikely.


So basically you are saying that she totally confused, almost an idiot. I don't believe that she is so ignorant. You simply can't identify strongly with N and INTP if you are an ISTp. It is impossible to do that if you understand the theory and can read the literature.
I never said anything of the sort. I would perhaps explain how such a situation occurs but like I said to you before, it's not productive to be so black and white over such issues especially in discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
I'm not so sure P=p and J=j. According to a lecture by Dmitri Lytov and at least one other source (here, I think), Myers' J/P dichotomy is a departure from Jung's theory of rational/irrational; in fact, she considered rational to be EJ/IP and irrational EP/IJ. Hence the functional differences betwen IJ and Ij, and IP and Ip. Therefore, how can they automatically translate?
Yeah interesting this could be true I keep meaning to read his views more but keep having other stuff to do

In regards to whats being said here, some other info.. As how I understand it when Myers and Briggs were looking to invent a code to explain what functions a person uses, hence their type, it's how they basically come up with the letter. As example if someone is say extraverted Sensor and an introverted thinker in their system then that gives you EST .. So basically this can mean ESTj or ESTp. How do we know which function is the extraverted one?..easy they put a J or a P at the end to show which function was the extraverted one, in this example it is the sensing one..an irrational one which means ESTp.

In say ISTP they have it that sensing is extraverted one so P at the end means irrational function is extraverted ie TiSe. In ISTJ they have it as Thinking and as the extraverted one ie SiTe and J at the end. Of course they got the functions all wrong so it's not much use overall! (at least this is how I understand how they came up with J and P - it was simply to explain which one they saw as the irrational function)

It was only later on that MB practitioners started attaching more significance to these letters.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 26/06/2008, 07:56 PM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

http://socioniko.net/en/

Quote:
So what did she do? She just tried to explain Jung's scales IN SIMPLE PLAIN WORDS.
The difference between the original Jung's typology and the approach of Isabel Myers is not evident at once. She used the same 4 dichotomies, and she gave them similar definitions.
However, as we have already noticed, Jung did not consider all the 4 dichotomies equipotent. He divided them into 2 groups: functions (T/F, S/N) and attitudes (E/I, Rat/Irrat). The first two manifested clearly and obviously in mental activity, in occupational success, etc. The second two described rather dynamics of the neural system, and thus represented something like “fine tuning” of types. In MBTT, all the 4 dichotomies are equipotent. We would describe it as comparing meters to liters and kilograms
Well, on the other hand, it is easy to criticize Myers based on the actual level of psychology, but at that time, about 50 years ago, her work was a significant progress, compared to the level of psychology at the time of the first publication of Jung's Psychologkcal Types. Jung's terms were too vague, allowed multiple interpretation. Myers proposed maybe simplified, but easily recognizable descriptions of the 4 dichotomies.
In addition, her approach was influenced by American cultural traditions. One of the dichotomies, Judgment/Perception, from this viewpoint is the most different from the original Jung's approach.
Let us remind, Jung used TWO synonyms for the same dichotomy: rationality/irrationality and judgment/perception. Myers chose the second name, and described this dichotomy similarly to Jung's ideas, but also added something new: in her interpretation, Judging types are decisive, self-disciplined, strong-willed, resolute, while Perceiving types are careless, unpunctual, somewhat infantile. This of course made her types somewhat different from the original Jung's types.
She understood it, too. And she proposed a hypothesis: her dichotomy Judgment/Perception was not the same as Jung's Rationality/Irrationality! She guessed that Rational = EJ + IP, Irrational = EP + IJ.
In fact, such a hypothesis was much controversial and resulted in misunderstanding and confusion. Myers herself wrote that her hypothesis somewhat contradicts to empirical data. In her book Gifts Differing (1968) she wrote that the criterion J/P sometimes does not work well for introverted types.
BTW, that's by Dmitri Lytov and Marianna Lytova. My mistake.
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 26/06/2008, 08:04 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
http://socioniko.net/en/



BTW, that's by Dmitri Lytov and Marianna Lytova. My mistake.
Interesting thanks I 'sense' there is something not quite right with the particular typology and the above sounds quite reasonable, i've situations of contradictions too I reckon and J/P contradictions and such. End of day socionics just makes more sense yeah? Good post
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 26/06/2008, 09:42 PM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

The pity about socionics is that it is more complicated and therefore harder to get into and use casually, in my opinion. I do really wonder, though, whether it is possible to judge someone's socionic type by using dichotomies rather than functions. Will it still turn out the same in the end?
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 26/06/2008, 10:43 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
I do really wonder, though, whether it is possible to judge someone's socionic type by using dichotomies rather than functions.
Yes, it is a more accurate and more reliable typing method.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou
Will it still turn out the same in the end?
Yes, always.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 SOCIONICS.COM