Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can you be a different type in each system? I say no!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Animal Daeva
    I probably could have given a take on Ti that sounded less like an ivory tower INTP or INFJ, but all the same, I definitely think I'm right about the Enneagram portion of that statement.

    Comment


      #17
      I love this thread.
      With some people it's really, really difficult to reconcile their different typings, and it seems best--at least for the time being--to just let both typings be, because something seems to not fit if you change either of them.
      I'm apparently in that boat, myself, but I might re-read some of the Socionics book I have.... At first, I just figured, well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, end of story. But then I heard Animal's opinion on this, and the back story, and I also read some about how Cognitive Type came to be, and now I agree that there's just too much of a common thread that's been going on since Jung, for these not to be the same phenomena that everyone's been looking at all this time. I have an idea that there is a systemic bias in Socionics, which persists regardless of how many people are studied, if it's purely based on their behavior, without another metric to check it against. Therefore, I find it very interesting that Gulenko has been working with Nardi, and has developed subtypes, and seems to have a renewed interest in incorporating vultology.

      Here's another thought, not sure if already mentioned. The Big 5 was developed from scratch, in some sort of academic setting, afaik, completely without using either Jungian or any other a priori assumptions about how many or what kind of personality groupings existed among the general population. They just had a whole lot of people describe other people they knew, and then took all the descriptions and grouped adjectives together into clusters of dichotomies, until the whole thing could be summarized by a minimal set. And what did they end up with? Five dichotomies...which some people made a quiz out of, but used the same letter abbreviations as MBTI types, plus Assertive/Turbulent, and called it 16 Personalities!

      Comment


        #18
        Yes, I've heard all kinds of justifications for this. But it's always struck me as odd...all systems claim to use Jung's original work. Eight base functions, utilizing a secondary one. They have the same foundation and operate on the same principles.

        Yet people claim to be different things in different systems. To me, that honestly shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental underpinnings of the theories.

        Not that I'm one to talk, though. I still can't get into socionics due to pathetic ILE descriptions and the fact that it insists upon things that aren't true in my experience. So I do get how this can make for serious confusion.

        Exploring CT right now and am very curious as to what they will say.

        Comment


        • Qassim
          Qassim commented
          Editing a comment
          For anyone who might read this, I just had CT type me. One thing is for sure--either their system is wrong, or I am. And I know for a fact I'm an ENTP. Shrug.

        #19
        I found this today on the CT site:
        Then as the study of these signals began offering a greater understanding of the functions — the signals were eventually able to correct for mistypings that may have come from a purely Jungian approach. A sample who might have been typed as NiTe using Jungian descriptions alone, was seen as visually resembling the TiNe/NeTi samples hitherto categorized. This prompted deeper investigation into the cognition of the supposed “NiTe” and it became apparent that they were TiNe after all — and the mistyping was due to a misconception within the definitions given to us by Jung/et al, rather than an error in the signals themselves. The signals had identified the true type of the individual and the psychological approximation had failed.
        which I found very interesting, because it goes with what I had already thought.
        One of the main reasons I was so excited to get typed by CT originally, was because I had been wishing for someone with some kind of method that was better at getting at the truth, to be able to either confirm or deny my typing which I had identified as for years since I first got into typology. Similarly to the above example, I always score INFP on the usual quizzes, (as long as I'm being honest and feeling my usual self) with I and N very strong. I've even had other people tell me that I was 100% Delta, that I had a lot of Si, was an obvious INFP on video, have zero Se, and one even said that I was what she imagined when she imagined an EII (lol). Yet, something didn't feel quite right. Wearing that type was kind of like walking around with a tiny pebble in my shoe. But I didn't know what it was, since I couldn't imagine any other type fitting. So I was super excited about getting professionally visually typed. And sure enough, I got something I hadn't even considered before, mostly due to the bias against "Sensors" in typology communities.

        In some ways, the divergences between vultology and traditional typings raise more questions. If you have people fit one type vultologically, but are "more like something else" behavior wise, then what to do about that? Should Socionics (and MBTI, etc.) be changed? If the purpose of Socionics is to categorize people into which roles they are likely to play in society, I could also see an argument that the system should be left the way it is, because even if someone's facial expressions and body language don't match their Socionics type, the latter is more useful for the intended purpose of the particular system. Note that Cognitive Type is not *based* on Jung. The large overlap with his archetypes that emerged from the data was more of an interesting result of analyzing the data. So in that way, I could see multiple systems coexisting without having to agree with one another, and people could be free to use whichever system they prefer, or find most useful. But how about for predicting other people? Guidance counseling? Perhaps the idea that all systems should be reconciled with each other might not be something to just take for granted.

        Comment

        Working...
        X