-
-
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
-
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
-
I found this today on the CT site:
which I found very interesting, because it goes with what I had already thought.correct
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
-
I agree. The typology systems that claim to utilize Jung's cognitive theories must adhere to Jung's foundations and therefore, arrive at the same conclusion. The only difference of the systems is HOW it works and some other non-fundamental variances such as nomenclature. The conclusion should not deviate even if the method is different. If we extrapolate the basic structural components of any system, we're going to get a consistent result each and every time.
That being said, I think the main issue with MBTI is that it's super popularized and therefore overly simplified so that it's easy for those who don't understand the foundational concepts to misinterpret and spread further misinformation. This is common with anything that's popular because it's meant to spread amongst the masses and nothing spreads faster than what's easy. I also have noticed that any type not NF, especially what's opposite of them (ST), is treated harshly and viewed as criminals. I think it's due to the bias that Myers-Briggs laid out because they were NF types (Fi Ne NOT Ni Fe as many erroneously claimed). ST types are unfairly and unrealistically branded as immoral, heartless, soulless, emotionless assholes. There isn't actually not a lot of ST types on the internet to defend and correct the woefully misinformed typology communities. Much of it has to do with the functions in that sensory thinking types are much more apt dealing with tangible events and situations, what I call, "dealing with shit in real time." ST types have the hardest time grasping the underlying purposes and shrug off the consequences of discussions/arguments online.
First, STs don't think online is real. Arguing with faceless keyboard warriors doesn't accomplish anything. I like being right like anyone else, but I don't NEED to prove that I'm right to faceless entities because there is no tangible reason nor benefit that could sway me. I won't get paid more (I won't be paid at all). I won't be any smarter now than I was before the discussion/argument. All I would accomplish would be waste time and I equate that as "entertainment."
Second, STs are skeptical and establish the baseline of truth from concrete sources (whether it's facts or logical conclusions based upon concrete limitations). Either way, the origins of truth comes from what's real. Although there is acceptance of what is, it doesn't mean that you've convinced us. You must come up with logical reasons as to why you've come up with such arguments. Most people who dabble with MBTI cannot explain why or how they've concluded what they did and when challenged, they get defensive and angry. Ultimately, you can think whatever you want and you say whatever you want but if you cannot give logically sound arguments to fortify your position, then you've lost. I've called you out on your shit and you deserve to be angry because your level of reasoning is total shit. I do this a lot, and people think I'm being a troll but I'm merely pointing out the elephant in the room.
I'm consistently Se Ti across the board- Jung SeT and socionics SLE-Se. But with MBTI, it's likely I'd be typed as ENTP, at least upon first glance, even though I don't exhibit hardly any Ne. Most people can quickly tell after reading my comments and thoughts that I'm Se Ti, but ONLY if they actually know that cognitive functions exists, which would conflict with MBTI "think tank" because sensors are supposed to be "stupid."
MBTI dichotomy lacks consistent structure, basically, there's NO structure and it's confusing with the simple typing of E vs. I, S vs. N, T vs. F, P vs. J. You cannot determine cognitive bias with any confidence based upon personality bias. MBTI wrongly puts stock in determining type by personality, not by actual cognitive functions, which is basically an afterthought. The system is sloppy and flimsy which leads to vast mistyping. The most troubling aspect about MBTI is that it has a bias for intuition where it's easy to type someone as intuitive IF they show any inkling that they think beyond the surface. So anyone that's "dense" is lumped in as a sensor.Last edited by SnatchYourWeave; 08-29-2020, 12:35 PM.Comment
-
Ah you caught me lol my Fi PoLR probably comes out more I think. To anyone with a good grasp of Fi- that includes all the Fe ego types since they're also good at Fi (but don't value it) they'll instinctively know the relational value of the situation and its potential to grow into something else down the line. I think that's why feeling types consistently have exhibited how much they're appreciative of something helpful, big or small. I disregard small, because "Ok, it exists, but so? Who cares. It's not making a dent now and unlikely to sprout. I won't put in any effort to draining blood from a turnip. I'm moving onto something bigger and (probably) better." That's my mentality. It's an overall pragmatic approach, sentiment could not reach me, but I'm pretty sure that all ST types will agree with that (even if it seems unflattering). I think the difference between the dismissiveness of Ti paired with Se vs Te paired with Si is that SLE/LSI will admit that there's something there but choose to willful dismiss it. LSE/SLI simply don't see it and didn't even consider it to begin with. -
Exactly - I think it makes sense to consider the things that make sense to you. Some people love to waste time, but I don't. But, what might look like a "waste of time" to someone else, would actually be a good use of my time, since I am not them, so I get something different out of it.
I'm not sure why some people like to just waste time. -
LOL I think Ne leads know how to waste time since they've invented that hobby. I can respect people who choose to explore a small or unknown path because they sense it could be beneficial to them but ultimately, I don't care, it's not my decision so I don't concern myself with other people's problems. Some people have purposely misinterpreted (Beta NFs) what I've said as being selfish and so it must mean that I'm SEE and can't possibly be SLE. SLE is closer to Gamma and is the only Beta type that isn't ideological. I think it's because of demo Te. Not ironically, LSI is similar to SLE where they also don't give a shit what others decide for themselves, albeit both likely think others are wrong in their decisions. I think people are wrong all the time, but I don't want to correct them, but if pressed I'll explain the reasons. Even if LSI is pressed, they still won't give you a reason, they'll just flat out say you're wrong and let you struggle to figure out why LOL The reason is because LSI considers explanations to be minor thing (ignoring Te). Either way, both Beta STs are savage and don't waste time with what they've assessed as a waste.
-
-
This is something I find really interesting actually.
One of the reasons why I went away from typologies of this sort is that it seemed like you could make the system any way you wanted and draw the category boundaries wherever. But the idea that there is something common underlying all of them, and because of this, this is what needs to be taken into account for the actual typology... that's an idea I find interesting and worth unpacking.
Teaching people the basics in a way that they can take the same framework and apply it to differing theories has a lot of appeal.Comment
Comment