|
|
Post by Roshan on Dec 17, 2020 22:22:11 GMT -5
I stumbled across this discussion on perc that seems to cover the bases of the kerfuffle over whether you can or should be a different type in socionics and MBTI, also referencing Jung's theory. I'm not as much interested in the OP's specific question as the replies about the general theoretical grounding, and of course I'm on the side of the synthesizers. |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 3, 2021 14:45:32 GMT -5
I stumbled across this discussion on perc that seems to cover the bases of the kerfuffle over whether you can or should be a different type in socionics and MBTI, also referencing Jung's theory. I'm not as much interested in the OP's specific question as the replies about the general theoretical grounding, and of course I'm on the side of the synthesizers.
Ugh, i missed that thread, sorry Roshan
I'm obviously on the side of the synthesizers too. You can see the two most common arguments for "typing with an X"s in this thread :
-the "i've taken multiple tests with the same results" argument.
Yeah, sure, but the thing is those trait-based and axis-based tests are JUST an indirect and flawed way to determine a functional type. Scoring "50/50" on something doesn't mean you're both, just that the test doesn't know.
(needless to say, anyone who uses this argument is unlikely to be any of the two possible INxJs...)
-the "under Jung original theory..." argument
But the thing is Jung never asserted ANY stacking.
It wasn't Ni Fi Ti Se
It wasn't Ni Fx Tx Se either He never went as far as to describe the matrix.
He was focusing on dominant and inferior function pretty much exclusively.
Btw, it's pretty significant that the people who provided the substantial information in this thread... "Perhaps" and "Figure"... are both marked as "Banned" in their profile.
Figure does raises a VERY important point though.
That's the issue with online test worshippers in the mbti crowd.
that's the issue with lots of people on socionics boards.
That's my issue with Eric Strauss tests. That's my issue with Auburn signals.
The lack of attention to the qualitative aspect of slots.
It's not about how much and how strong. It's about how it's used.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 3, 2021 15:06:35 GMT -5
Now about the question of being a different type in different systems...
My take on this is that, as long as the systems share the same basic (and jungian) definitions of introversion and extraversion, and the same definitions of N, S, T, F, then they SHOULD all talk about the same thing. They should ALSO share the same definitions of the 8 functions, since really, a function is ultimately just an orientation (i vs e) within a field (NSTF).
So when the systems appears to disagree, it's either an optical illusion, or it's because one (or both) got something wrong somewhere along the way.
Then that "something" should be looked at and corrected.
And in this case, "correcting" would mean going back to I vs E. N vs S. F vs T.
It seems to me that the differences of definitions between socionics and MBTI are largely reconcilable. Usually both systems got a different aspect of the function right, and missed some other part of its full spectrum.
DSP "objective personality" system is the exception here.
At this point, OP people are working within their own set of definitions and premises. And their stuff probably can't be reconciled with anything else anymore.
|
|
