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
  #41  
Old 31/05/2008, 03:12 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Ti in MBTT is not . in Socionics is not Ti in MBTT.
I hit the quote button by mistake

Last edited by Cyclops; 31/05/2008 at 03:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 31/05/2008, 03:50 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,365
Default

I am thinking of making a good video which has a length of several minutes. That way we'll be sure of my type.

I can send it to youtube and give you a link to it. Just give me few days.
__________________
"To live happy, live hidden."
β ST, E6 autopreservation.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 31/05/2008, 05:57 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by complicater-complexer View Post
I am thinking of making a good video which has a length of several minutes. That way we'll be sure of my type.

I can send it to youtube and give you a link to it. Just give me few days.
Good for you! I'm too camera shy for that personally

I look forward to seeing it!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 31/05/2008, 07:42 PM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Ti in MBTT is not . in Socionics is not Ti in MBTT.
to put it more clearly.........I think that what you mean is that Ti Type Descriptions in MBTI do not correspond to Ti Type Descriptions in Socionics. But unless you phrase it that way, how is anybody to know what you mean?

Because we're talking about Constants....
like i said though Ti will always be Ti because T will always be T and I will always be I therefore Ti will always be Ti. Both systems affirm this. It's not negotiable like i said. It's not my own choice. It's nature's choice it's the way it is.

the same then applies for all the other functions.
But when we talk about Forms......
Type Descriptions are negotiable because there are several similar ways to describe a person of a particular type.


Remember that there are constants and there are forms (its aphilosophical distinction)
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 31/05/2008, 07:45 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi View Post
to put it more clearly.........I think that what you mean is that Ti Type Descriptions in MBTI do not correspond to Ti Type Descriptions in Socionics. But unless you phrase it that way, how is anybody to know what you mean?


Because we're talking about Constants....
like i said though Ti will always be Ti because T will always be T and I will always be I therefore Ti will always be Ti. Both systems affirm this. It's not negotiable like i said. It's not my own choice. It's nature's choice it's the way it is.
the same then applies for all the other functions.
But when we talk about Forms......
Type Descriptions are negotiable because there are several similar ways to describe a person of a particular type.

Remember that there are constants and there are forms (its aphilosophical distinction)
I always thought that Ti and Te are exactly the same as those of MBTI, unlike Si and Se.
__________________
"To live happy, live hidden."
β ST, E6 autopreservation.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 31/05/2008, 08:02 PM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Wrong.
No, I was only refering to the 4 letter Identity Code (i'll call it the IC here) ,that's it.................you misunderstood me. (knowledge and understanding are 2 different things)

For the IC...you would be wrong.... J and P are negotiable!
(you may be right in another context but i won't go there)
J and P are negotiable......take j for example, it can be attributed to either:
  1. what a person does/appears like in the outer world of E (this is the mbti way of doing it) OR
  2. what the characteristic of the dominant world is
So as you can see as far as IC's go.....it is negotiable.
thats why we have a lot of confusion about the issue.
Its all about representation...there's even a third option too.
However for communication purposes you can only work off of one option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by complicater-complexer View Post
unlike Si and Se.
i cant tell you , i don't know of any valid theory to explain the relationship between those two.

Last edited by kensi; 31/05/2008 at 08:02 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 31/05/2008, 08:08 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
to put it more clearly.........I think that what you mean is that Ti Type Descriptions in MBTI do not correspond to Ti Type Descriptions in Socionics. But unless you phrase it that way, how is anybody to know what you mean?
A Ti leading type in Socionics is not a Ti leading type in MBTT. You are assuming (incorrectly) that Ti refers to the same thing as (Ti) in Socionics. But it doesn't. And we know that it doesn't. So you just have to accept this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
Because we're talking about Constants....
No, we are not talking about constants. You are simply wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
like i said though Ti will always be Ti because T will always be T and I will always be I therefore Ti will always be Ti. Both systems affirm this. It's not negotiable like i said. It's not my own choice. It's nature's choice it's the way it is.
Nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. An INTj is the same type as an INTJ. An INTp is the same type as an INTP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
the same then applies for all the other functions.
No. Change your view on this. Now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi View Post
No, I was only refering to the 4 letter Identity Code (i'll call it the IC here) ,that's it.................you misunderstood me. (knowledge and understanding are 2 different things)
No, you are still wrong. I did not misunderstand you. You have a false view on this. The J/P distinction refers to a biological phenomenon. And there is no way (it is logically impossible) that you are P in one model and J in the other.

Last edited by Prometheus; 31/05/2008 at 08:08 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 31/05/2008, 08:30 PM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
(incorrectly) But it doesn't. And we know that it doesn't. So you just have to accept this.
. You are simply wrong.
Nonsense. is
No. Change your view on this. Now.
No, you are still wrong. I did not misunderstand you. You have a false view on this. .

Dammit! I dont care what your conclusion is! you cant communicate conclusions to other people in case you havn't noticed and this is a forum for communication (amongst other things )

the conclusion doesn't tell anybody anything. You have a long way to go to get to where you think you're at....
All your conclusions are one dimensional. What am i to get out of it?

Maybe try talking about some of the other things that got you there. and then we'll have a real conversation.
I wish i could be more positive


Problem>Hypothesis>Test>observations>Calculations>Conclusion
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01/06/2008, 12:43 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi View Post
Dammit! I dont care what your conclusion is!
You should. There is no legitimate excuse for ignoring the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
you cant communicate conclusions to other people in case you havn't noticed and this is a forum for communication (amongst other things )
Irrelevant. The truth is more important than successful communication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
the conclusion doesn't tell anybody anything.
Irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the conclusion is true or false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
You have a long way to go to get to where you think you're at....
I'm already there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
All your conclusions are one dimensional.
They are true. That is all that matters. Simplicity is a virtue. If my conclusions are one dimensional, so much the better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
What am i to get out of it?
You would learn something if you weren't so ignorant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
Maybe try talking about some of the other things that got you there. and then we'll have a real conversation.
If you disrespect the truth, conversations are irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
I wish i could be more positive
I wish you could be more logical.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01/06/2008, 01:41 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
You should. There is no legitimate excuse for ignoring the truth.


Irrelevant. The truth is more important than successful communication.


Irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the conclusion is true or false.


I'm already there.


They are true. That is all that matters. Simplicity is a virtue. If my conclusions are one dimensional, so much the better.


You would learn something if you weren't so ignorant.


If you disrespect the truth, conversations are irrelevant.


I wish you could be more logical.
just curious how old you are.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01/06/2008, 02:18 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default :Ses:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi View Post
just curious how old you are.
Back to the same question(s) kensi? You're the man and a heirarchy should be developed of course.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01/06/2008, 02:39 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Back to the same question(s) kensi? You're the man and a heirarchy should be developed of course.
goooootcha! i hope it can still be fun
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02/06/2008, 08:52 PM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Who do you disagree with?
I disagree with you.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02/06/2008, 09:38 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 disagree with you.
On what exactly?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02/06/2008, 09:40 PM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

The j/p theory.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02/06/2008, 10:05 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
The j/p theory.
Why? You know that the four dichotomies are the same in both Socionics and MBTT, don't you? And since they are, that in itself is enough to prove that there can be no j/p switch. And if you compare type descriptions, you will realize that the ISTJ is clearly an ISTj (LSI) and not an ISTp (SLI). The same goes for the ISFJ, which is very clearly an ISFj (ESI) and not an ISFp (SEI). The situation is not as obvious for the N types, but when you look at reality, when you look at the real types and their interactions with other types, the ABCD=ABCd is confirmed.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03/06/2008, 05:27 AM
kensi's Avatar
kensi kensi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
And if you compare type descriptions, you will realize that the ISTJ is clearly an ISTj (LSI) and not an ISTp (SLI). .
I think that this(type descriptions), while attempting to form a reasonable foundation, are really open to speculation......as there may be sub-types that skew the integrity of the established agenda.

I dont even consider J/P to be a real dichotomy, just a superficial one for type coding purposes.

so i don't see this kind of reasoning as a solid basis with which to go forward.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03/06/2008, 09:59 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi View Post
I think that this(type descriptions), while attempting to form a reasonable foundation, are really open to speculation......as there may be sub-types that skew the integrity of the established agenda.
No. You don't seem to have acquainted yourself with the socionic literature. Maybe you should do that. What you personally think here is totally irrelevant. Don't you realize that Socionics is a well-established discipline just as much as MBTT? What I say about the type descriptions is trivial and common knowledge for anyone that has bothered to compare the two models. Read what Dmitri Lytov has said about this subject (Introduction to Socionics in 3 parts at www.socioniko.net). Read Yekaterina Sergeyevna Filatova's book on Socionics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
I dont even consider J/P to be a real dichotomy, just a superficial one for type coding purposes.
Think again then. Read Jung's Psychological Types. Read David Keirsey's Please Understand Me II.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi
so i don't see this kind of reasoning as a solid basis with which to go forward.
Open your eyes and start to study the subject seriously. Don't be so narrow-minded and prejudiced.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03/06/2008, 10:26 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. You don't seem to have acquainted yourself with the socionic literature. Maybe you should do that. What you personally think here is totally irrelevant. Don't you realize that Socionics is a well-established discipline just as much as MBTT? What I say about the type descriptions is trivial and common knowledge for anyone that has bothered to compare the two models. Read what Dmitri Lytov has said about this subject (Introduction to Socionics in 3 parts at www.socioniko.net). Read Yekaterina Sergeyevna Filatova's book on Socionics.


Think again then. Read Jung's Psychological Types. Read David Keirsey's Please Understand Me II.


Open your eyes and start to study the subject seriously. Don't be so narrow-minded and prejudiced.
i can work off of your leads and we'll see where it'll take us.

So Prom, what is J/P to you ?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03/06/2008, 11:27 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kensi View Post
So Prom, what is J/P to you ?
A label for the biological difference(s) between rational types and irrational types.

Have you read any literature on this? Have you actually compared what socionists and MBTT theorists say on the subject? If you haven't, you should do that first and then we can discuss further. If you have, you should point out exactly how you think that it is possible that J and P do not refer to the same empirical phenomenon as rationality and irrationality in Socionics and Jung.
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 04:18 AM.


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