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
  #1  
Old 11/02/2010, 10:17 AM
Suzzy's Avatar
Suzzy Suzzy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 137
Default Reliability of dichotomies

How reliable are the dichotomies in determining type?
__________________
Lady of the knight
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11/02/2010, 05:30 PM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

IMO they're not reliable because:
- described as information elements they're abstract and almost no type restricts to one or two;
- described as functions they tell parts of a description without the whole image of the type. Sometimes they borrow things from one type only (eg. most of what's said about Si is rather borrowed from the SEI descriptions, ime);
- they have poor descriptions compared to the ones of the types, and these are sometimes confusing - take for example "efficiency", which is used for Te, but it can be understood in many ways, for example Te types use to be time-efficient, while Ti ones are resource-efficient;
- they miss a lot of things, for example usual behaviour & stuff.

Maybe more things can be added.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11/02/2010, 07:11 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Basing on my recent typings of new people IRL I have encountered:

Most useful of the 4 main dichotomies to the least

MOST USEFUL

T/F dichotomy - i've found this one pretty useful, especially the PoLR - it's not hard for me to spot a Te PoLR at work for instance.

SECOND MOST USEFUL

N/S - not quite the dichotomy, I also combine this with functions. I find Se easiest to spot, followed by Si. Ne and Ni are almost on a level playing field for me, but maybe Ni more because personally (and nothing against the function - they're all useful) but personally it bores me or seems too vague.

THIRD MOST USEFUL

E/I - I feel i've developed a sort of awerness to pick up on this IRL, it's not so much how much or less how people talk (as a layman example of the dichotomy), but I feel I can pick up on the energy a person has - an E or I energy. However, i've found - watch out for this, because Se can be pretty energetic.

LEAST USEFUL:

J/P - not so much useful on it's own to type, but more useful combined with the E and I in the form of temperaments. I've read that the J/P can be determined by the shape of the skull - but I don't wish to comment on that method by discussing it here.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11/02/2010, 08:18 PM
stanprollyright's Avatar
stanprollyright stanprollyright is offline
The Looks
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Basing on my recent typings of new people IRL I have encountered:

Most useful of the 4 main dichotomies to the least

MOST USEFUL

T/F dichotomy - i've found this one pretty useful, especially the PoLR - it's not hard for me to spot a Te PoLR at work for instance.

SECOND MOST USEFUL

N/S - not quite the dichotomy, I also combine this with functions. I find Se easiest to spot, followed by Si. Ne and Ni are almost on a level playing field for me, but maybe Ni more because personally (and nothing against the function - they're all useful) but personally it bores me or seems too vague.

THIRD MOST USEFUL

E/I - I feel i've developed a sort of awerness to pick up on this IRL, it's not so much how much or less how people talk (as a layman example of the dichotomy), but I feel I can pick up on the energy a person has - an E or I energy. However, i've found - watch out for this, because Se can be pretty energetic.

LEAST USEFUL:

J/P - not so much useful on it's own to type, but more useful combined with the E and I in the form of temperaments. I've read that the J/P can be determined by the shape of the skull - but I don't wish to comment on that method by discussing it here.
I basically agree with most this, especially the bolded parts. It is pretty much always better to type using Model A and quadras than dichotomies, Jungian or Reinin, but both of them can point you in the right direction or confirm a typing. Other than temperament, I find the best dichotomies are the ones that lead you to specific IM elements (N/S and T/F determine ego elements if you have either temperament or quadra figured out, and most of the better Reinins are based on quadra values).
__________________
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."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11/02/2010, 10:12 PM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

S/N and T/F are more useful, I think; though some people can get those wrong. E/I and J/P are less useful, as people seem to confuse them with MBTI a lot and misunderstand them in general (those two are somewhat related, I think).
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11/02/2010, 11:07 PM
Suzzy's Avatar
Suzzy Suzzy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I've read that the J/P can be determined by the shape of the skull - but I don't wish to comment on that method by discussing it here.
I wish you would share more about the use of the skull as a method of visual identification as the idea interests me.
Lol, maybe I will post an x-ray of my skull for V.I. !
__________________
Lady of the knight
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12/02/2010, 05:03 AM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

I assumed that this reliability means making your mind based exclusively on the descriptions of these dichotomies, over the type descriptions.
I think the basic four dichotomies are wrong, afaik Socionics is functions and information elements, Ni =/= Ne, and so on, sometimes they manifest in an opposite way to be put as "N".

I find the evolution of Aushra's method of addressing the type very natural and useful for this purpose:
- first the Jungian dichotomies ("ENTp" - Extroverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving);
- then renouncing at the j/p dichotomy, realizing that Rationality is in the order of the functions ("ILE" - Intuitive-Logical Extrovert);
- then using unique names for the functions ("IL" - intuition of potential and structural logic);
- then unique name of types ("Don Quijote").

As far as I know, the ex-Soviet communities use exclusively type descriptions in typing instead of functions, and Aushra was doing the same thing. IMO precision of typing has grown with the evolution of the naming convention.

There are many things that can identify a type without appealing to the dichotomies, sometimes contradicting them, for example behavioural patterns and appearance (for VI). I met an ILI who was the most "extroverted" among all, I met very "feeling" LIIs musical artist, and so on.
I don't trust VI so much, but there are some people who base their typing exclusively on it, without using the dichotomies at all (eg. SG, as far as I can tell).

I think the four dichotomies are the worst way to go for typing, except one other thing: things like "hidden agenda" and such artefacts. I know cases of people disagreeing with a type just because its hidden agenda is not so obvious, this is not a joke . It's like dismissing someone as being ILE or SLE just because his/her Fe is not so obvious, which in most of the cases is not.

I use the functions to usually restrict a subject to several types (the similarities), before deciding, but in the end the whole image has the last word to say - the unique. For me, the descriptions as the ones on socionics.com, socioniko.net and psychotypes.com are the most reliable for typing, although a little bit frugal.

The functional descriptions like the ones on wikisocion.org are rather an analysis, an explanation than observation and I don't recommend them (there have some useful details, though). I don't even think that their authors created them for this purpose.

Concluding, the dichotomies as a decision factor in typing is one of the worst things in Western Socionics communities, it should be avoided as much as possible, in my opinion. They are good for analysis, discuss, debate or make the work easier, but not for accurate typing.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12/02/2010, 12:56 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzy View Post
How reliable are the dichotomies in determining type?
They are ok to start with, thats about it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08/03/2010, 09:51 PM
LCTesla's Avatar
LCTesla LCTesla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 34
Default

3 out of 4 are unambiguously right in most cases. The fourth can be tricky.
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 10:09 AM.


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