Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

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


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #101  
Old 30/08/2009, 11:29 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
There is another explanation here: You are a blithering idiot.
I am right either way. And you are totally incompetent at typing.
  #102  
Old 31/08/2009, 06:32 AM
stanprollyright's Avatar
stanprollyright stanprollyright is offline
The Looks
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Default

I would just like to point out that this is the stupidest, most uninformative and boring thread I've ever tried to skim. After 90 posts, isn't it apparent that neither of you have changed your mind in the slightest and never will? Now it's just throwing insults. Grow up. You're not convincing anyone.
__________________
So this one time me an' my bes' frien' Stan, we went to a church service. That preacher was talkin' 'bout hell. So Stan leans over to me an' he says, "I bet hell is like a PoLR hit every day."

An' I says, "Stan, you prolly right."
  #103  
Old 31/08/2009, 06:57 AM
JWC3's Avatar
JWC3 JWC3 is offline
The WILDCARD!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
I would just like to point out that this is the stupidest, most uninformative and boring thread I've ever tried to skim. After 90 posts, isn't it apparent that neither of you have changed your mind in the slightest and never will? Now it's just throwing insults. Grow up. You're not convincing anyone.
And I says; "Stan... You prolly right, You prolly right Stan... You prolly right"
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The wisest man alive
Religion = Lawn Chairs
"IT'S ALL DAY!"
  #104  
Old 31/08/2009, 09:02 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

. . . . . . . . .

Last edited by Cyclops; 31/08/2009 at 09:05 AM. Reason: . . . .
  #105  
Old 31/08/2009, 09:48 AM
yellowfever765 yellowfever765 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
That's an incredibly insane statement from a person who believes himself to be a LII. Totally absurd. If you really believe that, you must be an idiot. Sorry, it had to be said, but you reason like a lunatic.
First of all, if she is considering ISFp as a possible type, there's no absurdity about it in correlation to an INTj as they both share the same Quadra values. It makes sense that she would consider the two.

Secondly, this is for Cyclops:

I have a question or three: Have you ever been involved in logical debating? If so, how would you rate your performance in evaluating others' factual accuracy? Is it difficult or a breeze?

(The questions I'm asking are of the aspect of reality)
  #106  
Old 31/08/2009, 09:54 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
I would just like to point out that this is the stupidest, most uninformative and boring thread I've ever tried to skim. After 90 posts, isn't it apparent that neither of you have changed your mind in the slightest and never will? Now it's just throwing insults. Grow up. You're not convincing anyone.
[Removed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfever765 View Post
First of all, if she is considering ISFp as a possible type, there's no absurdity about it in correlation to an INTj as they both share the same Quadra values. It makes sense that she would consider the two.
[Removed]

Last edited by Zeus; 31/08/2009 at 05:06 PM. Reason: ad hominem
  #107  
Old 31/08/2009, 10:16 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
I would just like to point out that this is the stupidest, most uninformative and boring thread I've ever tried to skim. After 90 posts, isn't it apparent that neither of you have changed your mind in the slightest and never will? Now it's just throwing insults. Grow up. You're not convincing anyone.
Hi Stan, I wonder if it would be OK to ask you some questions?

It seems to me that you are citicising Prom and I for being insulting, yet don't you think you've made a post which is insulting itself (or offensive to the people who have made the effort to research, post, contribute to the debate)? I'm just curious of how you would justify that? ie is it hypocritical, a moral high ground stance, I don't know, i'm just curious about the nature of Fi here (I think you are ENFp)?

Also, I personally think this thread has been rather informative, in that it's discussed the nature of the merry/serious dichotomy, and looked at some other concepts such as Te and Ti and philosophical connections. I suppose what i'm wondering is, if you are criticising the thread for being uninformative or stupid or something, why then do you make an equivalent post yourself? (ie why not bring something constructive to the table in regards to typing me, for instance)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfever765 View Post
First of all, if she is considering ISFp as a possible type, there's no absurdity about it in correlation to an INTj as they both share the same Quadra values. It makes sense that she would consider the two.

Secondly, this is for Cyclops:

I have a question or three: Have you ever been involved in logical debating? If so, how would you rate your performance in evaluating others' factual accuracy? Is it difficult or a breeze?

(The questions I'm asking are of the aspect of reality)
I think i'm quite good at logical debating and analysing others logical stance, but sometimes i've been right and other times not, I usually feel confident in it though when i've tried I think. I've sometimes debated things in a logical way in situations like work, and I kind of like the challenge or something on a forum for instance at times. In regards to this thread, I do think that this thread has been somewhat complex for me at times, so it makes me wonder if maybe that is like a Ti hidden agenda, or maybe Ti or Te in the ego block. Hmmm, i'm not sure if that helps though. Thank you for your help

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
No, it doesn't, you idiot. Don't you understand even the most basic aspects of the types? It is totally idiotic to consider both ISFp and INTj as possible types for the same person. Incredibly incompetent and stupid.
As both types share the Te/Fi quadra values, they are both merry/subjective quadra dichotomy

I am curious how you have been sure of ego for me through thread then change it to ISXj, do mean this because of my enneagram?

Last edited by Cyclops; 31/08/2009 at 10:16 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
  #108  
Old 31/08/2009, 10:25 AM
yellowfever765 yellowfever765 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 33
Default to Cyclops

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I think i'm quite good at logical debating and analysing others logical stance, but sometimes i've been right and other times not, I usually feel confident in it though when i've tried I think. I've sometimes debated things in a logical way in situations like work, and I kind of like the challenge or something on a forum for instance at times. In regards to this thread, I do think that this thread has been somewhat complex for me at times, so it makes me wonder if maybe that is like a Ti hidden agenda, or maybe Ti or Te in the ego block. Hmmm, i'm not sure if that helps though. Thank you for your help

Great response! I think it's very possible that you have a hidden agenda, to understand. At least in this thread, it seems you have quite a need for clarifying others' comments, whether or not others have said offensive things. You do this by frequently asking questions about someone's reasoning behind their statements. I bet you hate feeling confused/unaware about topics that you're interested in (such as your personal Type).

And don't mention the help. I'd really enjoy it if you were finally able to dissolve all uncertainty about your type!
  #109  
Old 31/08/2009, 11:10 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
As both types share the Te/Fi quadra values, they are both merry/subjective quadra dichotomy
Completely irrelevant. ISFps and INTjs are so different in every way that no one could ever confuse them, unless you have absolutely no idea what typical INTjs and a typical ISFps are like.

Quote:
I am curious how you have been sure of ego for me through thread then change it to ISXj, do mean this because of my enneagram?
If you are type 1 or type 6, then you cannot have ego. But your previous actions suggest ego as very likely. That is also how you have described your own behaviour in the past. So if you have ego you are mistyped in the Enneagram.

But ... the reasoning of an ISTj is clearly different from the reasoning of an INTj. The ISTj is much more realistic and focused on empirical data, and that difference comes from the ISTj's creative function. So it's much easier to mistakenly identify an ISTj as an Objectivist since the focus for the ISTj is very resemblant of empiricism. But the ISTj is very dogmatic about some things, and is sometimes refusing to consider empirical data that proves the ISTj wrong. So there are important differences there too, separating the ISTj from true empiricists/objectivists.

It is much less likely that an ISTj will end up with the kind of crazy ideas that have no connection with reality that are so common among INTjs, but it is also extremely unlikely that an ISTj is capable of abstract theoretical reasoning at more than a very superficially level.

In contrast to the INTj, the ISTj is totally uninterested in theoretical issues; everything must be down-to-earth, practical and useful for the ISTj. The INTj is somewhat like that too when it comes to using theoretical insights for practical purpuses, but INTjs are intellectuals, which is something an ISTj can never be.

The strongest arguments for ISTj in your case is that you say that you are an early bird and that you say that you are a 1 or a 6 in the Ennegram. You are definitely not an INTj.
  #110  
Old 31/08/2009, 11:31 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
If you are type 1 or type 6, then you cannot have ego. But your previous actions suggest ego as very likely. That is also how you have described your own behaviour in the past. So if you have ego you are mistyped in the Enneagram.
Can we agree that Mike Tyson is an ESTp and an enneagram 6? It may be worth pointing out that ESTp is a universally agreed socionic typing for him as I understand it, and also an almost universally agreed enneagram type for him among enneagramists (I have heard 8 for him also). It would be interesting to hear why he isn't a 6 (or an 8), and an ESTp.

Note: saying that enneagramists and socionists are incompetent at typing (which although might be true) isn't a valid argument in itself, as an example to show that the correlations you suggest are as rigid as you say - ie 100% correlation.

Edit: also, as I understand it, there was some study done to try to equate MBTI with enneagram, the only "real" comparison that came through was that type 6 was sort of an "ambivert" in the I/E dichotomy, although you may have access to this study, if not CC could perhaps provide it.

Quote:
The strongest arguments for ISTj in your case is that you say that you are an early bird and that you say that you are a 1 or a 6 in the Ennegram. You are definitely not an INTj.
OK.

It would also be useful to explain how someone can't be an early bird and also for instance a P type.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfever765 View Post
Great response! I think it's very possible that you have a hidden agenda, to understand. At least in this thread, it seems you have quite a need for clarifying others' comments, whether or not others have said offensive things. You do this by frequently asking questions about someone's reasoning behind their statements. I bet you hate feeling confused/unaware about topics that you're interested in (such as your personal Type).

And don't mention the help. I'd really enjoy it if you were finally able to dissolve all uncertainty about your type!
Thanks! It is possible! I will have to think about it some more!

Last edited by Cyclops; 31/08/2009 at 11:36 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
  #111  
Old 31/08/2009, 12:18 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
Can we agree that Mike Tyson is an ESTp and an enneagram 6?
No, absolutely not. An ESTp can never be a 6. It's totally out of the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
It may be worth pointing out that ESTp is a universally agreed socionic typing for him as I understand it, and also an almost universally agreed enneagram type for him among enneagramists (I have heard 8 for him also).
Then we know for sure that either Tyson is not an ESTp, or he is not a 6. And type 8 and type 6 are almost totally opposite types. The typical 6 is an ISFj, the typical 8 is an ENTj.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
It would be interesting to hear why he isn't a 6 (or an 8), and an ESTp.
No ESTp is a 6. It's logically impossible for an ESTp to be type 6 in the Enneagram.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Edit: also, as I understand it, there was some study done to try to equate MBTI with enneagram, the only "real" comparison that came through was that type 6 was sort of an "ambivert" in the I/E dichotomy, although you may have access to this study, if not CC could perhaps provide it.
Type 6 is always introverted. Every 6 is an introverted type in Socionics. We actually have to question the competence of those so called Enneagram theorists and practitioners, since it is so damn obvious that they don't understand their own typology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
It would also be useful to explain how someone can't be an early bird and also for instance a P type.
I have only said that the general pattern is very clear. Empirical studies from other fields of science have also found the same pattern, where typical P traits are more common in night owls, and typical J traits are more common in early birds. So, I am not the only one who has found this general pattern, but I found it independently (in my own typings of real life people in Sweden) of the research in which I later discovered that the same general pattern was described. We cannot say with certainty that no exceptions are possible, but so far I haven't found one single exception among those I have met in real life and been able to type with certainty by other typing methods.
  #112  
Old 31/08/2009, 12:43 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
No, absolutely not. An ESTp can never be a 6. It's totally out of the question.


Then we know for sure that either Tyson is not an ESTp, or he is not a 6. And type 8 and type 6 are almost totally opposite types. The typical 6 is an ISFj, the typical 8 is an ENTj.


No ESTp is a 6. It's logically impossible for an ESTp to be type 6 in the Enneagram.


Type 6 is always introverted. Every 6 is an introverted type in Socionics. We actually have to question the competence of those so called Enneagram theorists and practitioners, since it is so damn obvious that they don't understand their own typology.
Is there any way you can justify this without using your enneagram to socionic correlations?

Quote:
I have only said that the general pattern is very clear. Empirical studies from other fields of science have also found the same pattern, where typical P traits are more common in night owls, and typical J traits are more common in early birds. So, I am not the only one who has found this general pattern, but I found it independently (in my own typings of real life people in Sweden) of the research in which I later discovered that the same general pattern was described. We cannot say with certainty that no exceptions are possible, but so far I haven't found one single exception among those I have met in real life and been able to type with certainty by other typing methods.
If the possibility exists for exceptions then you have to also reason that the possibility exists for a J type to show P type behaviour.

I think it is possible that people who get up early in the morning have to because they follow a structure in life - they have jobs, children to get ready in the morning etc, so therefore they are more likely to conform to some "J" type descriptions/behaviours, but it doesn't make them "J" socionic types.
  #113  
Old 31/08/2009, 01:07 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
Is there any way you can justify this without using your enneagram to socionic correlations?
Of course. The correlations are the conclusions that can be drawn from a thorough study of the Ennegram and Socionics. You just have to really study the Enneagram types. If you do, you should see the correlations, since they are there to be seen for anyone who will take a serious look at it.

But of course there is no short justification that can be put in a nice little formula or package. I have provided the summary, the conclusion. You have to make the necessary study yourself; I can't help you to see it if you don't bother to look at the evidence. You can start by reading Enneagram type descriptions and compare them with socionic type profiles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
If the possibility exists for exceptions then you have to also reason that the possibility exists for a J type to show P type behaviour.
We don't know that there are any exceptions to the general pattern. And that you can, occasionally, show behaviour that is not typical of you is of course irrelevant. Only the general pattern is of interest. Who cares if you behave like a P type in ten minutes on Wednesday if you every other time of day behave like a typical J type?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I think it is possible that people who get up early in the morning have to because they follow a structure in life - they have jobs, children to get ready in the morning etc, so therefore they are more likely to conform to some "J" type descriptions/behaviours, but it doesn't make them "J" socionic types.
That's also completely irrelevant. The research has shown a pattern that is related to personality, not working situations.
  #114  
Old 31/08/2009, 01:38 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Of course. The correlations are the conclusions that can be drawn from a thorough study of the Ennegram and Socionics. You just have to really study the Enneagram types. If you do, you should see the correlations, since they are there to be seen for anyone who will take a serious look at it.

But of course there is no short justification that can be put in a nice little formula or package. I have provided the summary, the conclusion. You have to make the necessary study yourself; I can't help you to see it if you don't bother to look at the evidence. You can start by reading Enneagram type descriptions and compare them with socionic type profiles.
There are many people who have studied the socionics and enneagram and reach different conclusions to you, including myself. I am asking if you are able to put the information down here using for instance the example I supplied. I do agree that comparing socionic and enneagram has some correlations, but as you say it isn't a neat package, they are two seperate systems and disparities in correlations do exist, it's also is too convenient for you to ignore any empirical evidence to the contrary. I'm sure you must realise this, so why not bend a little in your correlations, just perhaps say they are likely, but not definite?

Quote:
We don't know that there are any exceptions to the general pattern. And that you can, occasionally, show behaviour that is not typical of you is of course irrelevant. Only the general pattern is of interest. Who cares if you behave like a P type in ten minutes on Wednesday if you every other time of day behave like a typical J type?
Have you read Gulenkos DCNH sub types? One can be for instance an IXXJ but have an IXXP subtype, this would be known as a NORMALISER with a HARMONISING sub type.

Eg:

— Strengthening the linear-energetic functions ( and ), whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms dominant subtype (D).
— Strengthening of the pliable-deployment functions ( and ) leads to the appearance of creative subtype (C).
— Strengthening of the even-stable functions ( and ) gives normalizing subtype (N).
— Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions ( and ) - harmonizing subtype (H).


Quote:
That's also completely irrelevant. The research has shown a pattern that is related to personality, not working situations.
Will you post the study and your own correlations?

Last edited by Cyclops; 31/08/2009 at 01:43 PM.
  #115  
Old 31/08/2009, 01:48 PM
Banter's Avatar
Banter Banter is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 587
Default

Moderators Note:

Please avoid the personal commentary. Keep the discussion focused on the relevant topic, not other posters-- if you disagree with statements made, discuss the differences of opinion themselves vs. making comments about the person with whom you disagree.

Thanks,

Mod Banter
  #116  
Old 31/08/2009, 06:09 PM
stanprollyright's Avatar
stanprollyright stanprollyright is offline
The Looks
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Hi Stan, I wonder if it would be OK to ask you some questions?
Sure, I like those!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
It seems to me that you are citicising Prom and I for being insulting, yet don't you think you've made a post which is insulting itself (or offensive to the people who have made the effort to research, post, contribute to the debate)? I'm just curious of how you would justify that? ie is it hypocritical, a moral high ground stance, I don't know, i'm just curious about the nature of Fi here (I think you are ENFp)?
I'm not trying to take any moral high ground; this isn't a criticism of the actual insults, it is that after 5 pages of the two of you arguing you have digressed to throwing insults. I think you both need to accept that you will never agree. I'm not sure what this has to do with Fi, other than an aversion to conflict (and yes, I am an ENFp). This does have to do with the process/result dichotomy, because I guess I was sick of all your pointless process and was waiting for a result that never came. It was more of a "wake up, this is going nowhere" than a moral conviction about insults. I apologize for any personal offense you might have taken at my criticism of your methods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Also, I personally think this thread has been rather informative, in that it's discussed the nature of the merry/serious dichotomy, and looked at some other concepts such as Te and Ti and philosophical connections. I suppose what i'm wondering is, if you are criticising the thread for being uninformative or stupid or something, why then do you make an equivalent post yourself? (ie why not bring something constructive to the table in regards to typing me, for instance)?
This thread was originally about your Enneagram type, and it became about how your Socionic views differ. It seemed to me to be a lot of repetition of positions and clarification on what you were trying to say, and then just straight up calling the other person wrong. Because I know nothing about Enneagram, and I already know Prom and I have plenty of opinion differences that would just make the thread longer and more convoluted, I stayed away from this thread.

Your criticism of the my inconsistencies was dangerously close to my PoLR, and it showed confidence a in Ti that I obviously don't have. I see a disregard for competition and territory, and you seem to grasp the whole of the theory and propose many different possibilities within it, so I would pair your Ti with Ne. Basically, I see you as an Alpha NT (I never really had a problem with LII), and this would fit with the merry/serious dichotomy, as I see you as very merry.

Also, I think going about finding a possible type/subtype combination is wrong. Type is more basic than subtype, and you will find you fit better within a larger pool than a smaller one. Subtype is merely to explain the trends of difference between individuals of the same type, but all those individuals of different subtypes will be vastly more similar to each other than to any member of a different base type.

Good luck on your type search (I doubt you'll find it in this thread).
__________________
So this one time me an' my bes' frien' Stan, we went to a church service. That preacher was talkin' 'bout hell. So Stan leans over to me an' he says, "I bet hell is like a PoLR hit every day."

An' I says, "Stan, you prolly right."
  #117  
Old 31/08/2009, 06:27 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
Sure, I like those!



I'm not trying to take any moral high ground; this isn't a criticism of the actual insults, it is that after 5 pages of the two of you arguing you have digressed to throwing insults. I think you both need to accept that you will never agree. I'm not sure what this has to do with Fi, other than an aversion to conflict (and yes, I am an ENFp). This does have to do with the process/result dichotomy, because I guess I was sick of all your pointless process and was waiting for a result that never came. It was more of a "wake up, this is going nowhere" than a moral conviction about insults. I apologize for any personal offense you might have taken at my criticism of your methods.



This thread was originally about your Enneagram type, and it became about how your Socionic views differ. It seemed to me to be a lot of repetition of positions and clarification on what you were trying to say, and then just straight up calling the other person wrong. Because I know nothing about Enneagram, and I already know Prom and I have plenty of opinion differences that would just make the thread longer and more convoluted, I stayed away from this thread.
Thank you for response. You are right about me insulting Prom, I was insulting him but I was also trying to be ironic in a way by calling him an "idiot", with the irony being in a somewhat consistent use of the word himself to others, but I am guilty as charged and I apologise.
Quote:
Your criticism of the my inconsistencies was dangerously close to my PoLR, and it showed confidence a in Ti that I obviously don't have. I see a disregard for competition and territory, and you seem to grasp the whole of the theory and propose many different possibilities within it, so I would pair your Ti with Ne. Basically, I see you as an Alpha NT (I never really had a problem with LII), and this would fit with the merry/serious dichotomy, as I see you as very merry.
I suspect I am merry also. I also have thought about the Ti, although the thread is very long ha, it occured to me that what I am doing is looking for/at the logical inconsistencies in some posts on this thread, and in that way, it does imo sound more Ti'ish than Te'ish.

I think that I probably am TiNe, (but SiFe could be an option for me too). Thank you for your input, and thank you actually for calling "time" in a way to the discussion (i'm aware it was sort of repetitive, heh)
Quote:
Also, I think going about finding a possible type/subtype combination is wrong. Type is more basic than subtype, and you will find you fit better within a larger pool than a smaller one. Subtype is merely to explain the trends of difference between individuals of the same type, but all those individuals of different subtypes will be vastly more similar to each other than to any member of a different base type.
Yep.

Quote:
Good luck on your type search (I doubt you'll find it in this thread).
Thanks for your post.
  #118  
Old 01/09/2009, 01:42 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Given that we can have IP types with an IJ subtype (or EJ subtype etc), as per Gulenko and his empirical research, and socionic explanation, I can't help but wonder how that would factor in with an "empiricist" such as Prom, who has said that all types strictly adhere to their type temperament (and as such eg a "lazy" LXE etc doesn't exist), surely the facts that they exist would have to be used?

I also wonder how an "empiricist" and a Te type such as Prom - who claims all Te types are empiricists - would use a "subjective" approach to typing - that all typing has to come from oneself, and that one simply cannot apply an empirical attitude and use the facts of socionics and another person without having to subjectively relate it to oneself.

And that a Te type would seemingly baulk at providing factual proof of concepts such as "early birds" and J types, Mike Tyson's type socionic and enneagram type, I would expect to see a whirlwind of facts being used, and provided as per it's nature.

It is just something on my mind. That is, the empirical/rational divide, the temperament issue and such, (and that the reinin dichotomies were created to divide the 16 types into two groups - that is 8 vs 8) that the actual evidence would display that the correlations that you state (Prom) on this thread (and some others), aren't as absolutes at all.
  #119  
Old 01/09/2009, 02:16 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,365
Default

I have to clarify what I said to Cyclops once:

Many studies of correlation between MBTI and socionics were done, in only one of the studies were both the enneatypes and the MBTI types validated which is that of Jerome Wagner. He could only establish that most 6s are introverted.

I added later that Riso&Hudson say that 6s are true ambiverts, but they were saying it based on their observations.

Anyway there are no ambiverts in MBTI. So there is no contradiction between what Riso&Hudson are saying and the conclusion of the statistical study of Jerome Wagner.
__________________
"To live happy, live hidden."
β ST, E6 autopreservation.
  #120  
Old 01/09/2009, 05:54 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
Given that we can have IP types with an IJ subtype (or EJ subtype etc), as per Gulenko and his empirical research, and socionic explanation, I can't help but wonder how that would factor in with an "empiricist" such as Prom, who has said that all types strictly adhere to their type temperament (and as such eg a "lazy" LXE etc doesn't exist), surely the facts that they exist would have to be used?
Temperament is fundamental. To invent subtypes and call the "IJ" or "EJ" etc. doesn't change the fundamental fact that every single INTp has an IP temperament and that every single INTj has an IJ temperament and that we can always observe this difference in behaviour and attitudes when we compare those two types. Temperament cannot be changed; it's a biological fact of each of the 16 basic types that we simply have to accept as given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I also wonder how an "empiricist" and a Te type such as Prom - who claims all Te types are empiricists - would use a "subjective" approach to typing - that all typing has to come from oneself, and that one simply cannot apply an empirical attitude and use the facts of socionics and another person without having to subjectively relate it to oneself.
The claim that all ego types (note the difference here) are empiricists is not only what I claim, it is also what Jung claims, and it is also what Socionics claims, since it is described in the type profiles, and it can be logically deduced from the Reinin dichotomies. The ego types are empiricists in the sense that we have a dichotomy in which we contrast one attitude, that we have decided to call "empiricist", with another attitude that we have decided to call "ideologist" (Jung) or "rationalist" (James and philosophical literature in general, which socionic literature in general agrees with) or "subjectivist" (Reinin). We can observe the difference empirically in the types, and the socionic type profiles describe this difference. This is basic knowledge of the types.

Your claim that "all typing has to come from oneself, and that one simply cannot apply an empirical attitude and use the facts of socionics and another person without having to subjectively relate it to oneself" is utterly trivial and irrelevant. It's not more relevant than to say that most persons cannot see without having one or two eyes subjectively attached to their skull. Nothing of interest follows from that.

There are two basic attitudes two scientific and philosophical problems: 1) empiricist/objectivist/realist and 2) ideologist/subjectivist/rationalist/idealist (the suggested labels for these two different attitudes vary in the literature, but they all have the same observable basic difference in mind).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
It is just something on my mind. That is, the empirical/rational divide, the temperament issue and such, (and that the reinin dichotomies were created to divide the 16 types into two groups - that is 8 vs 8) that the actual evidence would display that the correlations that you state (Prom) on this thread (and some others), aren't as absolutes at all.
There are two types of people in the world: those who can see general patterns based on an enormous amount of empirical facts, and those who can't. That difference is related to intelligence but also to the general difference between N and S types. To a slightly lesser degree it is also related to the socionics types and the difference between and . I admit that I happen to be favored by nature in all those three dimensions, and that I can't expect every other person or type to be able to see the same facts with the same ease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by complicater-complexer View Post
Many studies of correlation between MBTI and socionics were done, in only one of the studies were both the enneatypes and the MBTI types validated which is that of Jerome Wagner. He could only establish that most 6s are introverted.
If you have established that most 6s are introverted, that only means that you have established that most people typed as 6s have also been typed as introverted. We have no evidence that all of those typings were correct.

But, if most 6s are in fact introverted, that means that all 6s are in fact introverted, because the difference between introverts and extraverts is a biological difference that we have to accept as a given fact. It can't be changed, and it must be reflected in every correct typology.

If the Enneagram deserves any credibility at all as a typology worth taking seriously, then we can't accept that two people of the same Enneatype belong to different sides of the I/E dichotomy. If we accept that many 6s are introverted, we have to decide to exclude every extraverted type from that type category. If we don't do that, and if the defenders of the Enneagram object to that, then we must conclude that the Enneagram is simply a totally false typology that is not worth a shit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by complicater-complexer
I added later that Riso&Hudson say that 6s are true ambiverts, but they were saying it based on their observations.

Anyway there are no ambiverts in MBTI. So there is no contradiction between what Riso&Hudson are saying and the conclusion of the statistical study of Jerome Wagner.
They all try to make sense of what they can observe. And if we study both typologies, my conclusions are inevitable.

Last edited by Prometheus; 01/09/2009 at 05:54 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Closed Thread


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 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM