# The Mathematics of Socionics



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Tellus said:


> Can you provide a source that supports your claim?


See my post immediately above.



> I'm not sure if this is correct or not... but I think it is a bit off topic. You should post a new thread about this, and perhaps you could settle the j-p switch discussion once and for all.


Read it again. It goes to the heart of the j-p switch and explains why MBTI shares the same dichotomies with socionics, _the point we are discussing_.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Tellus said:


> There is a reason why their "cognitive stackings" are inaccurate. I (i.e. not the author of the paper), and Bukalov, claim that BOTH the Myers-Briggs model AND Model A are accurate with eight functions. I have explained this in one of the model B threads.


The empirical evidence doesn't support MBTI or socionics.

Indeed, _actual _empirical research in _universities _supports a five-factor model.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

The use of the Freudian framework in socionics doesn't even make any sense. All eight cognitive function operate in the ego or superego. The id is not cognition, per se, but is instinct and drive, both of which reside more in the body than they do in the mind.

Socionics is just a weird and incoherent mashup of Freud and Jung and some other gobbledygook passing itself off as "science".


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> What does it mean to "prefer J"? It means your orientation to objective reality is judging, that is, your primary extroverted function is a judging function--ie, _the dichotomy of the extroverted function in the dom-aux function pair_. The verbiage is the interpretation of this definition.


The extrovert consciously lives in objective reality. The introvert consciously lives in subjective reality. By what you say, J/P is showing how the introvert unconsciously lives in objective reality, which is the Id.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> See my post immediately above.



Which post? #? Are you equating your own comment to an actual source?




> Read it again. It goes to the heart of the j-p switch and explains why MBTI shares the same dichotomies with socionics, the point we are discussing.



No, this thread is about "The Mathematics of Socionics" paper. We have not been discussing the j-p switch, and I will not discuss it in this thread. You have explained your comment, that's all. *If* the paper is correct then it is possible to mathematically prove Model A (and/or "Model B"), and if your argument is correct then it is possible to mathematically disprove the Myers-Briggs model. However, your argument is rather pointless until we actually know if the paper is correct or not.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> The empirical evidence doesn't support MBTI or socionics.
> 
> Indeed, _actual _empirical research in _universities _supports a five-factor model.


The empirical evidence support both MBTI/Socionics AND Big Five... but this is really off topic.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> The use of the Freudian framework in socionics doesn't even make any sense. All eight cognitive function operate in the ego or superego. The id is not cognition, per se, but is instinct and drive, both of which reside more in the body than they do in the mind.
> 
> Socionics is just a weird and incoherent mashup of Freud and Jung and some other gobbledygook passing itself off as "science".


Yes, the so-called unconscious functions (Id) are actually preconscious according to Yermak. This is an interesting topic... but also very OFF 

Btw, socionists have never equated Freudian Id to Socionics' Id. But I agree with you... they could have chosen another name.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> The extrovert consciously lives in objective reality. The introvert consciously lives in subjective reality. By what you say, J/P is showing how the introvert unconsciously lives in objective reality, which is the Id.


No. INTP's primary orientation to objective reality is _perceiving_. Ne lies in the ego, in consciousness, not in the so-called id. His orientation to subjective reality is _thinking_; Ti also lies in the ego, in consciousness.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Tellus said:


> Which post? #? Are you equating your own comment to an actual source?


The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Judging or Perceiving



> This preference [J-P] may also be thought of as your *orientation to the outer world.
> *Everyone extraverts some of the time. This pair describes whether you extravert (act in the outer world) when you are making decisions or when you are taking in information.





tellus said:


> No, this thread is about "The Mathematics of Socionics" paper. We have not been discussing the j-p switch, and I will not discuss it in this thread. You have explained your comment, that's all. *If* the paper is correct then it is possible to mathematically prove Model A (and/or "Model B"), and if your argument is correct then it is possible to mathematically disprove the Myers-Briggs model. However, your argument is rather pointless until we actually know if the paper is correct or not.


No. My argument has been that the dichotomies are independent of the models. The only difference between the socionics and MBTI dichotomies is the j-p switch. That's why this is pertinent. And I demonstrated how J-P is related to j-p using the E-I dichotomy, and proved that the full Reinin sets for MBTI and socionics are identical--yet the models are not. 

In other words, I showed the independence of the Reinin dichotomies from Model A and the MBTI model, and any other model, for that matter.

Therefore, the paper is _wrong_.

QED


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Tellus said:


> The empirical evidence support both MBTI/Socionics AND Big Five... but this is really off topic.


Wrong. The Big Five variables are not identical to the socionics/MBTI dichotomies. Furthermore, _Big Five does not posit a structural model of cognition. _It only identifies five variables that broadly describe personality. Indeed, *the fact the Big Five variables exist independently of any model corroborates my point that dichotomies exist independently of structural models.*


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Tellus said:


> Yes, the so-called unconscious functions (Id) are actually preconscious according to Yermak. This is an interesting topic... but also very OFF
> 
> Btw, socionists have never equated Freudian Id to Socionics' Id. But I agree with you... they could have chosen another name.


Socionics is a bunch of speculation. So is Freud.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> No. INTP's primary orientation to objective reality is _perceiving_. Ne lies in the ego, in consciousness, not in the so-called id. His orientation to subjective reality is _thinking_; Ti also lies in the ego, in consciousness.


It sounds like you just disregarded the E/I dichotomy in favor of J/P function placement, the same way that you did the J/P dichotomy.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> It sounds like you just disregarded the E/I dichotomy in favor of J/P function placement, the same way that you did the J/P dichotomy.


J-P _includes _E-I and means the primary _extroverted _dichotomy. For INTPs, that's perceiving.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> J-P _includes _E-I and means the primary _extroverted _dichotomy. For INTPs, that's perceiving.


So, from the dichotomy test, if you're extroverted the first function is extroverted and your first function is your J/P preference, but if you're introverted then your first function is introverted and your second function is your J/P preference? Is this correct?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> So, from the dichotomy test, if you're extroverted the first function is extroverted and your first function is your J/P preference, but if you're introverted then your first function is introverted and your second function is your J/P preference? Is this correct?


Yes. That's what the E-I dichotomy does to the j-p when they're combined to form J-P. 

J-P is the primary _extroverted _dichotomy.

j-p, otoh, is the primary dichotomy--ie, the dichotomy of the dominant function.

The "extroverted" in J-P comes from E-I. That's the switch.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> Yes. That's what the E-I dichotomy does to the j-p when it's combined to form J-P.
> 
> J-P is the primary _extroverted _dichotomy.
> 
> ...


So then Dom doesn't equal Leading, because they aren't referencing the same thing in regard to objective behaviors of the individual?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> So then Dom doesn't equal Leading, because they aren't referencing the same thing in regard to objective behaviors of the individual?


What does "leading" mean? Where do you see it used?

J-P is not defined by "behaviors" since MBTI is not a behavioral model. It's a _cognitive _model. That's why J-P is defined by the primary extroverted dichotomy and not by how Js and Ps behave. How they behave is an _interpretation _of J-P commonly used to help ppl type themselves.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> What does "leading" mean? Where do you see it used?
> 
> J-P is not defined by "behaviors" since MBTI is not a behavioral model. It's a _cognitive _model. That's why J-P is defined by the primary extroverted dichotomy and not by how Js and Ps behave. How they behave is an _interpretation _of J-P commonly used to help ppl type themselves.


Leading meaning the Leading function in socionics.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Leading meaning the Leading function in socionics.


It's been a year since I last looked at socionics. _Leading _function is the dominant function and can be oriented to either the subjective or objective.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> Alright, it's been a year since I last looked at socionics. Leading function is the the dominant function and can be subjective or objective.


Only if you reject the objective behaviors of people.



> J-P is not defined by "behaviors" since MBTI is not a behavioral model. It's a cognitive model. That's why J-P is defined by the primary extroverted dichotomy and not by how Js and Ps behave. How they behave is an interpretation of J-P commonly used to help ppl type themselves.


I am sorry, but this is simply not true. MBTI is a behavioral assessment for use in promoting positive behavioral interactions. The functional stacking of the types was added much later, given little focus upon addition, and is a minority set of information within MBTI. When individuals and organizations hire out MBTI professionals, the functional stacking is rarely mentioned, and if so, just in a passing moment of interest. They administer the test, verify via dialogue anyone who may be borderline, give information on the descriptions of strengths of the people, and then recommend how they can better their behavioral interactions for the betterment of all individuals.

The only reason people on here get so much into the functional stacking aspect of MBTI is, quite simply, because they have nothing better to do than play with sub-theories. In reality, the functional stacking aspect of MBTI is next to nothing in the real world.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> here in his forum about three years ago
> 
> like I just said, equating thinking-feeling and intuition-sensing to any big 5 dimension is a _category mistake_
> 
> even you stopped trying to defend it (3 yrs agao) when I pointed out how weak the correlations were...in fact, now that I think of it, you stopped responding when I asked you a technical question, which told me you are not trained in science or statistics but are just a layman


I've asked you to point me to this purported exchange, and I ask you again. And otherwise, maybe think about digging up enough intellectual integrity to stop referring to it.



ae1905 said:


> but if you're saying J-P in the "real mbti" also means "the primary j-p orientation, etc" then you're admitting the "real mbti" also has a stack


Myers talked about _dichotomies and cognitive functions both_, and I have never claimed otherwise. But it's pretty clear that _some_ of the cf stuff was essentially _Jungian lip service_, and that in any case, the dichotomies have greatly dominated the official MBTI establishment (Myers included) right from the beginning.

And there's a heap of recycled reckful on that issue in the spoiler, for anyone who's interested.


* *




For anyone who thinks that the rejection of the functions that Reynierse advocates would represent a revolutionary shift as far as the "official" MBTI is concerned, I'd argue, to the contrary, that the MBTI has essentially been centered around the dichotomies from the beginning. Aside from the test instruments themselves, the analysis in Myers' Gifts Differing focuses substantially more on the dichotomies than the functions. Myers was a nobody who didn't even have a psychology degree — not to mention a woman in mid-20th-century America — and I assume that background had at least something to do with the fact that her writings tend to somewhat disingenuously downplay the extent to which her typology differs from Jung. So it's no surprise, in that context, that the introductory chapters of Gifts Differing, besides introducing the four dichotomies, also include quite a bit of lip service to Jung's conceptions — or, at least, what Myers claimed were Jung's conceptions — of the dominant and auxiliary functions. But with that behind her, Chapters 4-7 describe the effects of the "EI Preference," the "SN Preference," the "TF Preference" and the "JP Preference," and those four chapters total _22 pages_. Chapter 8 then describes the eight functions — and that chapter consists _solely_ of a half-page table for each function, for a total of _four pages_. What's more, those four pages were simply Briggs' summaries of Jung's function descriptions, and Myers _ignored_ (and/or adjusted) substantial portions of those in creating her own type portraits. (As one example, and as discussed at length in this post, Myers' IS_Js bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-doms. And for a detailed discussion of the surgery Myers performed on Jung's conception of Te, see this post.)

But most tellingly, following Myers' introductory and portrait chapters, the second half of Gifts Differing — covering a variety of topics, including "Use of the Opposites," "Type and Marriage," "Learning Styles" and "Type and Occupation" — focuses _almost exclusively_ on the dichotomies, both singly and in combinations that don't correspond to the functions. She talks about introverts and extraverts, thinking types and feeling types, intuitives and sensing types, judging types and perceptive types, "INs," "ESs," "NF types," "STs," "introverts with thinking" (i.e., ITs), "EF types," "ESF types," "ISTs" and on and on. At one point in the Type and Marriage chapter, "FJ types with extraverted feeling" are mentioned, but that's very much the exception that proves the rule. References to the functions (and the dichotomy combinations that correspond to them) are almost entirely absent from the book's second half, and on the rare occasions when she refers to one of the two-letter combinations that corresponds to a function — e.g., SJ (Si) — she most often makes no reference to the function. At one point, for example, she notes that "Judging types, especially those who prefer sensing (the –S–J types), like their work to be organized, systematic, and foreseeable." I'm not suggesting that this means Myers didn't really believe in the functions (necessarily, anyway), but she was certainly not a theorist who thought the functions were anything like the main event.

Five years later, the 1985 edition of the MBTI Manual, co-authored by Myers, was even more lopsided in favor of the dichotomies. In a 1990 article ("Review of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator." Perceptual & Motor Skills, 70, 1187) in which John B. Murray concluded that the MBTI's "indices of reliability and validity have been extensively investigated and have been judged acceptable," Murray noted that over 1500 studies were included in the 1985 Manual — many of them either discussed in the text or included in one or more tables of statistics. And good luck finding _any results_ in that manual that are framed in terms of the cognitive functions. The 1985 Manual is full of statistics correlating type with interests, occupations, scholastic achievement, other personality measures, etc. — and the reported correlations _almost exclusively_ involve the four dichotomies, the sixteen types and/or dichotomy combinations with no meaningful function correspondence — with the combinations most often included (by a _wide margin_) being ST, SF, NT and NF. So on top of the fact that Myers and the rest of the official MBTI establishment were predominantly dichotomy-focused, it's also clear that the independent psychologists conducting many of those studies weren't laboring under any misconception that the MBTI dichotomies were relatively superficial indicators (convenient for testing and/or labeling purposes) while the cognitive functions were what the typology was _really about_.

The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998, and according to the Reynierse article I linked to above, it cites a grand total of _eight studies_ involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — and Reynierse summarizes them as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

And finally, I think it's also worth noting that the 17-page report that an ENFJ (for example) receives after taking the relatively recent MBTI _Step II_ test includes page after page of dichotomy-based analysis (including five separate subscales for each of the four dichotomies) and not a single mention of "extraverted feeling" or "introverted intuition" — other than a diagram near the end that shows that "ENFJs like Feeling best, Intuition next, Sensing third and Thinking least," and one brief note about tending to use Feeling in the "outer world" and Intuition in the "inner world." _All the rest_ of the ENFJ descriptions in the report — after the brief initial profile, which isn't broken down by components — are descriptions of N (not Ni or Ne), F (not Fi or Fe) and so on, and they're the _same descriptions_ of N and F (and the five subscales of each) that ENFPs receive in their reports (notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are Fe-Ni and ENFPs are Ne-Fi). And Nancy Harkey has pointed out that "there is no discussion in the Step II manual of applying type dynamics (dominant, auxiliary etc.) to the overall preferences. I really don't know what that means at the moment, but it is curious."

The more I reread Psychological Types, the more I appreciate the extent to which getting from Jung to the Myers-Briggs typology involved substantial adjustments and additions. I think the formidable job Briggs and Myers did in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff, and modifying and supplementing Jung's theory, is grotesquely underappreciated by many internet forumites. Myers may not have been as smart as Jung, and she may not have had a psychology degree, but she and her mother had the benefit of standing on Jung's shoulders, and Myers then spent many years, as a labor of love, educating herself on modern psychometric methods, designing and refining her test instrument, and gathering data from thousands of subjects — leading her to conclude that the four dichotomies (as she conceived them), and not the functions, were the main event. I think Myers' conceptions of the dichotomies and the types still leave plenty of room for further improvement, but 50 years later, the results of many more studies — and in particular, the correlation of the MBTI dichotomies with the Big Five — suggest that, in terms of the basics, Myers pretty much got it right. If Jung were still around, I think he'd mostly approve.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

reckful said:


> I've asked you to point me to this purported exchange, and I ask you again. And otherwise, maybe think about digging up enough intellectual integrity to stop referring to it.


I understand why you've buried this humiliating episode deep in your subconscious, but I assure you it exists...since you're the librarian type, why don't you do a simple search?

I've got better things to do than dig up past triumphs





> Myers talked about _dichotomies and cognitive functions both_, and I have never claimed otherwise. But it's pretty clear that _some_ of the cf stuff was essentially _Jungian lip service_, and that in any case, the dichotomies have greatly dominated the official MBTI establishment (Myers included) right from the beginning.
> 
> And there's a heap of recycled reckful on that issue in the spoiler, for anyone who's interested.
> 
> ...


yawn

this is nothing more than your failed attempt to rewrite history

jung is the creator of cfs and the father of type dynamics

end of story


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

@reckful

you didn't answer this:



ae1905 said:


> "perceptive and judging attitudes" mean _the primary j-p orientation to the external world_, ie, _the j-p valence of the first extroverted cf in the stack_...it's the same idea
> 
> but if you're saying J-P in the "real mbti" also means "the primary j-p orientation, etc" then you're admitting the "real mbti" also has a stack
> 
> (pls say it ain't so!....I'd be so crushed, just when I thought I found the "real" thing!)



what exactly is the J-P dichotomy in the so-called "real mbti"?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

reckful said:


> INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ.
> 
> INTP = I + N + T + P + IN + IT + IP + NT + NP + TP + INT + INP + ITP + NTP + INTP.


these terms are just the equivalent reinin dichotomies for "the real mbti"

do the combined terms (IN, IT, IP, etc) have individual names and descriptions?...what, for example, do you call TP and what does it mean?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> I understand why you've buried this humiliating episode deep in your subconscious, but I assure you it exists...since you're the librarian type, why don't you do a simple search?
> 
> I've got better things to do than dig up past triumphs


Your intellectual integrity is an inspiration to us all.

I assume you're talking about this thread. Amirite?

And assuming that's the thread you're referring to, allow me to point out how inconsistent it is with your characterizations of it in this thread.

You were the OP, and my first reply in the thread linked to the same McCrae & Costa article I've also linked to in this thread.

A-a-and in this thread, you've said:



ae1905 said:


> I called you on this before...despite your assertions, you were only able to show a reasonable correlation between _two _mbti dichotomies and two big 5 dimensions
> 
> two
> 
> ...


And also...



ae1905 said:


> here in his forum about three years ago
> 
> like I just said, equating thinking-feeling and intuition-sensing to any big 5 dimension is a _category mistake_
> 
> even you stopped trying to defend it (3 yrs agao) when I pointed out how weak the correlations were...in fact, now that I think of it, you stopped responding when I asked you a technical question, which told me you are not trained in science or statistics but are just a layman


Buuut golly, ae1905... if you take the time to actually look at that McCrae and Costa article, you'll see that it totally contradicts your claim about the relative strength of the MBTI/Big-5 correlations.

The T-scores McCrae & Costa published for the S/N and T/F dimensions were considerably _stronger_ than the E/I and J/P scores. 56.9 for S/N and 54.4 for T/F, vs. 44.4 for E/I and 42.7 for J/P.

That's the _exact opposite_ of your claim that only E/I and J/P exhibit "reasonable correlations" with the associated Big Five dimensions.

So it's hardly surprising that I didn't "stop trying to defend" those correlations (as you've claimed) — and instead, that my final post in that thread (on that issue) reiterated: "McCrae and Costa certainly agree. As they explain, 'Each of the four [MBTI] indices showed impressive evidence of convergence with one of the five major dimensions of normal personality.' The Reynierse and Bess/Harvey/Swartz articles my posts link to also note the same convergences."

You've also claimed that I "stopped responding when I asked you a technical question, which told me you are not trained in science or statistics but are just a layman."

Well, just FYI, there comes a point when I stop posting in every thread I ever become involved with, and for a wide variety of reasons.

I assume the "technical question" you were referring to is this one:



ae1905 said:


> "Impressive evidence of convergence" is not a statistical or scientific term. What were correlation coefficients for each dimension?


But those T scores are right there in the article I'd linked you to, and you were just as capable as pulling it up as I was. If you'd bothered to do that today, it might have spared you some embarrassment. Just sayin'.

If that exchange is what one of your "past triumphs" looks like, ae1905, I'd hate to see what one of your defeats looks like.

As a final note (on this issue), and so I'm not misunderstood: although the correlations McCrae and Costa reported for E/I and J/P were _weaker_ than the ones for S/N and T/F (the opposite, again, of your repeated claim), that's not to say they were particularly weak. Not only did McCrae and Costa characterize them as demonstrating an "impressive level of convergence" with Big Five Extraversion and Conscientiousness, but they concluded by suggesting that their fellow Big Five psychologists could benefit by reviewing the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature" (i.e., the existing body of MBTI studies) for additional insights into the four dimensions of personality that the typologies share, as well as for "valuable replications" of Big Five studies.



ae1905 said:


> jung is the creator of cfs and the father of type dynamics
> 
> end of story


End of what story? I certainly wouldn't disagree that Jung "is the creator of cfs and the father of type dynamics" — although, depending on whose version of type dynamics you're looking at, you're likely to find some elements that are inconsistent with Jung's original version.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> @*reckful*
> 
> you didn't answer this:
> 
> what exactly is the J-P dichotomy in the so-called "real mbti"?


 @*reckful* 

I don't think you'll be able to provide a satisfactory answer to the above question

T-F and N-S already specify judging and perceiving, respectively...the only additional information J-P can add is the relative weights of the dominant-auxiliary j-p functions--ie, their positions in the stack...an introvert who is a J _must _have a Je _auxiliary _function--that's the meaning of J in IJ...likewise, an introvert who is a P must have a Pe aux function


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

The mathematics of socionics and MBTI would be the battle of dollars and cents. Typology is big business in the business and education worlds.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

reckful said:


> Your intellectual integrity is an inspiration to us all.


aw, shucks...but tbh, it can't hold a candle to your intellecual "acumen", as I shall demonstrate here:



> I assume you're talking about this thread. Amirite?


yep

see?...you _are _an istj





> And assuming that's the thread you're referring to, allow me to point out how inconsistent it is with your characterizations of it in this thread.
> 
> You were the OP, and my first reply in the thread linked to the same McCrae & Costa article I've also linked to in this thread.
> 
> ...


does it?

let's see...



> The T-scores McCrae & Costa published for the S/N and T/F dimensions were considerably _stronger_ than the E/I and J/P scores. 56.9 for S/N and 54.4 for T/F, vs. 44.4 for E/I and 42.7 for J/P.
> 
> That's the _exact opposite_ of your claim that only E/I and J/P exhibit "reasonable correlations" with the associated Big Five dimensions.


LOL

can you tell us what a T-score is, reckful?

didn't think so

T-scores measure the _deviation _of a measurement from the mean, in this case the mean big 5 scores...they are a kind of normalized standard deviation...so a score of 56.9 is actually _worse _than a score of 50, if your goal is to show the measurement variable is identical to the distribution variable



> So it's hardly surprising that I didn't "stop trying to defend" those correlations (as you've claimed) — and instead, that my final post in that thread (on that issue) reiterated: "McCrae and Costa certainly agree. As they explain, 'Each of the four [MBTI] indices showed impressive evidence of convergence with one of the five major dimensions of normal personality.' The Reynierse and Bess/Harvey/Swartz articles my posts link to also note the same convergences."


you're so stupid you cite "evidence" you don't understand

table 4 in that paper gives the statistical correlations between mbti and big 5 dimensions...the strongest correlation is SN with openness at 0.61...the second strongest correlation is JP with conscientiousness at 0.55...a perfect correlation is 1.0...neither 0.61 nor 0.55 are strong correlations...the rest of the correlations are even weaker than these two

so I was right that there were two correlations that were "reasonable" and two that were weak...I just forgot two they were

chock it up to my memory...it was 3 years ago and the upshot of that thread didn't particularly stand out



> You've also claimed that I "stopped responding when I asked you a technical question, which told me you are not trained in science or statistics but are just a layman."


you've supplied ample proof I was right; you _weren't _trained in science or stats and you _are _a layman

thanks, istj!

I knew I could count on an istj to come through!





and in your last post you evaded my question about correlations 



> Well, just FYI, there comes a point when I stop posting in every thread I ever become involved with, and for a wide variety of reasons.
> 
> I assume the "technical question" you were referring to is this one:
> 
> But those T scores are right there in the article I'd linked you to, and you were just as capable as pulling it up as I was. If you'd bothered to do that today, it might have spared you some embarrassment. Just sayin'.


I would never have been stupid enough to pull up the T-scores

you _alone _deserve full credit for that




in fact, I did look up the correlations...that's why I recalled there were two dimensions where the correlations were somewhat reasonable...I just forgot which ones those were



> If that exchange is what one of your "past triumphs" looks like, ae1905, I'd hate to see what one of your defeats looks like.


it certainly doesn't look like this exchange

LOL





> As a final note (on this issue), and so I'm not misunderstood: although the correlations McCrae and Costa reported for E/I and J/P were _weaker_ than the ones for S/N and T/F (the opposite, again, of your repeated claim), that's not to say they were particularly weak. Not only did McCrae and Costa characterize them as demonstrating an "impressive level of convergence" with Big Five Extraversion and Conscientiousness,


your performance here demonstrates an impressive level of convergence with donald trump

congrats!


here's your prize, worthy of your performance:


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

reckful said:


> INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ.
> 
> INTP = I + N + T + P + IN + IT + IP + NT + NP + TP + INT + INP + ITP + NTP + INTP.


let's do this...the difference between INTP and INTJ is given by:

INTP - INTJ = (P - J) + (IP - IJ) + (NP - NJ) + (NTP - NTJ) + (ITP - ITJ) + (INTP - INTJ)

tell me what each term on the RHS means in the "real mbti"?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> aw, shucks...but tbh, it can't hold a candle to your intellecual "acumen", as I shall demonstrate here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Woo hoo! Congratulations, ae1905. You got something (partly) right — although, as I emphasized at the end of my last post, the _relative strength_ of the MBTI/Big-5 correlations is basically a non-issue (for purposes of this discussion) if _all four dimensions_ correlate strongly enough to indicate that the MBTI is essentially tapping into four of the Big Five dimensions (and they do).

My career (as you've gathered) does not include statistical analysis, I ended up looking at the wrong table in that article, and I mischaracterized those T-score results — and you're correct that, in declaring that E/I and J/P had _stronger correlations_ than S/N and T/F, you were only _half wrong_, rather than entirely wrong (as I stated). E/I and S/N are indeed the two dimensions that demonstrated the strongest correlations in that McCrae/Costa study.

Buuut you were, as I've said, 100% wrong (the main point) to claim that _any_ of the MBTI dimensions have insufficiently strong correlations with the associated Big Five dimension to support the conclusion that McCrae & Costa, and Reynierse, and Harvey (among others) have come to: that the MBTI is essentially tapping into the same underlying, substantially-genetic personality dimensions as four of the Big Five.

To partly repeat the sum-up from my last post (which is unaffected by my T-score screw-up): Not only did McCrae & Costa characterize all four MBTI dimensions as demonstrating an "impressive level of convergence" with their Big Five counterparts, but they concluded by suggesting that their fellow Big Five psychologists could benefit by reviewing the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature" (i.e., the existing body of MBTI studies) for additional insights into the four dimensions of personality that the typologies share, as well as for "valuable replications" of Big Five studies.

And it's worth noting — back on the "intellectual integrity" front — that you were also 100% wrong to claim that I'd conceded otherwise in any earlier PerC exchange.

Finally: just FYI, I refuse to wear any cap that reminds me of The Donald.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

reckful said:


> Woo hoo! Congratulations, ae1905. You got something (partly) right — although, as I emphasized at the end of my last post, the _relative strength_ of the MBTI/Big-5 correlations is basically a non-issue (for purposes of this discussion) if _all four dimensions_ correlate strongly enough to indicate that the MBTI is essentially tapping into four of the Big Five dimensions (and they do).
> 
> My career (as you've gathered) does not include statistical analysis, I ended up looking at the wrong table in that article, and I mischaracterized those T-score results — and you're correct that, in declaring that E/I and J/P had _stronger correlations_ than S/N and T/F, you were only _half wrong_, rather than entirely wrong (as I stated). E/I and S/N are indeed the two dimensions that demonstrated the strongest correlations in that McCrae/Costa study.
> 
> ...



you effectively conceded when you evaded my question about correlations....evasion is typically what people do when they don't want to utter the words, "I got nothing, I am wrong"

and I'll point out here what I pointed out in the other thread: "impressive level of convergence" is not a meaningful, scientific statement; rather, it's an _opinion_, and a vague one, at that...that's why I asked about the correlations which _don't _show _strong _correlations across _any _dimension, much less all four, and definitely _don't_ support the claim "mbti is tapping into the big 5", which is nothing more than a restatement of the same opinion


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

reckful said:


> Are you sincerely suggesting that Myers' type descriptions weren't affected in any way by her theoretical assumptions?
> 
> I'm afraid that's probably too much to ask of any personality theorist. And in any case, it certainly isn't true of Myers' descriptions, which include a fair amount of type-dynamical framing — which is not to say that they're not "accurate descriptions" in many (although certainly not all) respects, assuming you set the framing errors aside.


Yes. There is a difference between the underlying patterns and the theoretical explanations/"framing" (i.e. functions, dichotomies). 'Outgoing', 'talkative' and 'energetic' describe a personality trait (i.e. a pattern), but 'extraversion' does not. Myers chose a different theoretical "framing" than Jung had done, but this did not imply contradictory observations/descriptions of the actual types.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

reckful said:


> Please either read my actual posts and respond to them or don't respond at all.
> The Real MBTI Model says that the thinking-related ways — assuming you're using "thinking" in a T/F sense — in which INTJs typically differ from INTPs reflect differences associated with TJ-vs.-TP, ITJ-vs.-ITP, and NTJ-vs.-NTP. And that the thinking-related ways in which INTJs and ENTJs are typically similar reflect characteristics associated with T, NT, TJ and NTJ.


INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ

INTJ-ENTJ: T, NT, TJ, NTJ

INTJ-INTP: T, NT, IT, INT

This is still problematic. You are saying that INTJ uses Thinking in the same way as ENTJ _and _INTP. That is simply not true. Your model contradicts our observations, Jung, Myers, Grant, SSS and classical Socionics.



> Meanwhile, what's your source for the assertion that "INTJs and ENTJs play chess at a high level, and INTPs do not"?


What do you mean by source? The official MBTI test? No, we don't have that kind of evidence.

Can't you distinguish between INTJ/ENTJ and INTP? 



> I don't know if that's true or not (although I suspect it probably isn't). But if it's true, then the Real MBTI Model would say that there must be something about the way one or more of the characteristics associated with the relevant preferences (and preference combinations) contributes to chess-playing ability (and/or interest) that ends up leading to those statistical results.


That would be TJ and NTJ. Can you give me a plausible explanation? How do we go from TJ or NTJ to 'chess-playing ability'?

Judging:

"I like to have things decided.
I appear to be task oriented.
I like to make lists of things to do.
I like to get my work done before playing.
I plan work to avoid rushing just before a deadline.
Sometimes I focus so much on the goal that I miss new information."



> And as a final note, I know of no reason to assume that the relevant MBTI preferences for chess-playing purposes must be limited to T or combinations that include T.


Chess is about logical reasoning (i.e. calculations) and intuition (i.e. visualizations, patterns).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Tellus said:


> INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ
> 
> INTJ-ENTJ: T, NT, TJ, NTJ
> 
> ...


No, that isn't what I said. I said that it's theoretically possible for any of the other preferences, in combination with T, to result in what could fairly be viewed as T-related characteristics that might affect chess-playing ability.

_If_ it was the case — and again, you haven't provided any source for that assertion — that INTJs are "high level" chess players and INTPs aren't — then I would expect the explanation to lie in one or more of the MBTI-influenced characteristics associated with J-vs.-P (_including_ combinations like NJ-vs.-NP, TJ-vs.-TP, and NTJ-vs.-NTP).

And _any_ of the T-inclusive combinations — not just TJ (which you like to call "Te") and TP (which you like to call "Ti") — might not only turn out to be relevant, but might also be something that could fairly be characterized as how INTJs and INTPs "use Thinking" (your words).

And I also noted that I disagreed with _assuming_ up front that the only MBTI-related influences on chess-playing must be limited to T (or T combinations). _If_ INTJs are really much superior to INTPs in chess-playing ability (and again, you haven't given me any reason to think that's true), I'd tend to suspect that it would also turn out to be the case that INFJs were superior to INFPs in chess-playing ability.

You offered up a limited list of J characteristics and asked how they could affect chess-playing ability — but nobody knows what the full list of characteristics associated with the MBTI and Big Five clusters is. That's one of the reason psychologists keep doing studies. If two types who differ only on J/P also differ substantially (on average) in connection with some correlated thing (e.g., chess-playing ability), then that certainly suggests that there's something about J/P (either by itself or in combination with one or more other preferences) that has an impact on that correlated thing.



Tellus said:


> What do you mean by source?


What do you mean, what do I mean by source? You made a _factual_ assertion that "INTJs and ENTJs play chess at a high level, and INTPs do not." What's your basis for that assertion?


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

I'm an INTJ (INTp) and most of the INTPs (INTj) I've worked with have viewed me as being either "anal" (read "analytical"), a "scatterbrain," or a "space case" - or all of the above. They're usually willing to put up with my shenanigans, though, because I'm also generally regarded as being patient with others and reliable in my work, so they're typically willing to forgive my need for clearly defined instruction (why does that need to be "forgiven?"). They're probably also willing to put up with me because I share a lot of their interests and tastes. They're typically way better than me at doing things fast, but I'm definitely better at keeping things organized. They also tend to get annoyed with my lack of assertiveness.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...-theory-vs-mbti-dichotomies.html#post38119674

Tellus:

Let's discuss "the logical problems of the J-P preference", page 4. 

What does Lowen mean by "yet both are contained in P"?

----------

How accurate is the original J-P dichotomy (i.e the one which is endorsed by Reynierse)? 

It contradicts Big Five's 1-10 scales. Cognitive functions are much more accurate in this respect.

---------

A very strong argument against using dichotomies is that we know everyone has a favorite cognitive process.

Also... Isabel Briggs Myers (Gifts Differing): 

The supremacy of one process unchallenged by the others is essential to the stability of the individual. Each process has its own set of aims and for successful adaptation, as Jung points out, the aims must be "constantly clear and unambiguous". One process needs to govern which way a person moves; it should always be the same process, so that today's move will not be regretted and reversed tomorrow.


***********************************************************************





reckful said:


> I don't know exactly what Lowen was thinking, but Reynierse's point is that "type dynamics" purports to interrelate J/P with the other preferences in ways that are inconsistent with the data.


Can you give me a concrete example of this?



> Reynierse, as you know, is a huge believer in preference combinations that have personality characteristics associated with them (because the characteristic is one that's affected by two or more dimensions). But he notes that the partly-intuition-related characteristics that distinguish an INTJ from an INTP are the ones associated with the NT, NJ and NTJ combinations, and that there's really nothing more introverted about an INTJ's intuition than an INTP's intuition.


I agree with him that INTJ's intuition is not introverted, but NT.. NJ.. NTJ is certainly not an accurate way of distinguishing INTJ's intuition from INTP's intuition. Ni and Ne are completely different cognitive processes!



> Similarly, there's nothing more P-ish about an INTJ than an INTP that makes it appropriate to refer to an INTJ as a P-dom.


What do you mean by "P-ish about an INTJ"?



> I don't know what you mean by this.
> As the leading Big Five psychologists (McCrae & Costa) have acknowledged, the MBTI is effectively tapping into four of the Big Five dimensions (and each typology has things to teach the other about the nature of those dimensions). MBTI J/P, properly framed (i.e., ignoring the "type dynamics" nonsense), no more "contradicts" Big Five Conscientiousness than MBTI E/I, properly framed, "contradicts" Big Five Extraversion.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator

Well, the correlation seems to be about 50%. That's another big problem with the MBTI dichotomies.

McCrae and Costa: "there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types, instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions."

This was my point. 



> The "we" you're referring to here certainly doesn't include me (or Reynierse). And the 1985 MBTI Manual acknowledged that that theoretical aspect of the MBTI hadn't found any meaningful support in the data. And that was over thirty years ago, and as Reynierse points out, it still hasn't found any meaningful support in the data.


I don't think they were looking for that kind of data. However, we don't need the Jungian functions to conclude that everyone must have a dominant cognitive process. The MBTI dichotomies point to that as well. Each dichotomy refers to two cognitive processes (or several cognitive processes)...what else? And ENTJ has a more dominant logical process than ESFJ, otherwise the MBTI dichotomies are pointless. 

Btw, I like Isabel's argument (see above).


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

reckful said:


> That "history" is inaccurate in multiple respects. Do you really not know that? Why are you quoting it?
> Both the 1985 Manual and the 1998 Manual presented Fi-Ne-Se-Te as the official MBTI position, while acknowledging that Grant and others disagreed.


I thought she was right about this:

"Later editions of the MBTI Manual endorsed this position, and type dynamics were described in detail in the 1985 and 1998 editions."



> Myers' stack included four functions, not two. Her stack for an Fi-dom with a N-aux (for example) was Fi-Ne-Se-Te. (Jung's was Fi-Ni-Se-Te, and there's more on that here.)


How do you know Jung had Fi-Ni-Se-Te? Most people are uncertain about his model.



> In any case, tho, what matters at the end of the day is the extent to which any of those stacks has psychometric validity. Right, Tellus?


Yes... but MBTI dichotomies are different from Big Five (see previous post).



> And it has turned out that none of them do. Not Fi-Ni-Se-Te (Jung's). Not Fi-Ne-Se-Te (Myers's). And certainly not Fi-Ne-Si-Te (Grant's).
> None of those stacks reflects the way that the real, substantially-genetic building blocks of MBTI type — i.e., E/I, S/N, T/F and J/P — actually play out in combination in the real world.


None of those are an accurate model of INFP, that's why.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Tellus said:


> Can you give me a concrete example of this?


I mentioned the notion that the J means an INTJ's intuition is somehow "introverted" (while an INTP's is "extraverted"), and you said you agreed with my jaundiced take on that notion.

I also mentioned the notion that INTJs are really _Ps on the inside_. That's a second example of treating the four preferences in an interrelated way (unsupported by any evidence) that ends up conflicting with the preferences themselves.



Tellus said:


> Well, the correlation seems to be about 50%. That's another big problem with the MBTI dichotomies.


If your understanding is that that -0.49% means that half the MBTI J's were below-average in Conscientiousness (and half the P's were above-average), that's not what that number means.

Far from being a "big problem with the MBTI dichotomies," McCrae and Costa said that the correlations they found on _all four MBTI dichotomies_ demonstrated an "impressive level of convergence" with the corresponding Big Five factors, and it led McCrae and Costa to conclude that the MBTI was essentially tapping into the same real, underlying personality dimensions as four of the Big Five — and doing a sufficiently respectable job of it that it led McCrae and Costa to suggest that their fellow Big Five psychologists could benefit by reviewing the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature" (i.e., the existing body of MBTI studies) for additional insights into the four dimensions of personality that the typologies share, as well as for "valuable replications" of Big Five studies.



Tellus said:


> McCrae and Costa: "there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types, instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions."


I agree with that, but it just means you shouldn't view the four MBTI dimensions as "truly dichotomous" (in the sense in which McCrae & Costa were using that term). I view that whole issue as a red herring for the most part, and there's more discussion of that in the Discrete bimodal types section of Another MBTI Debunking.

And again, that wasn't a criticism of the MBTI as a whole.



Tellus said:


> I thought she was right about this:
> 
> "Later editions of the MBTI Manual endorsed this position, and type dynamics were described in detail in the 1985 and 1998 editions."


If your thought is based on a misunderstanding that there are "later editions" of the (Step I) MBTI Manual than the 1998 one, that is incorrect. And as I said, the 1998 edition (the latest) continued to present Fi-Ne-Se-Te as the official MBTI position, while acknowledging that Grant and others disagreed.



Tellus said:


> How do you know Jung had Fi-Ni-Se-Te? Most people are uncertain about his model.


My l-o-n-g discussion of that issue can be found here.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

reckful said:


> No, that isn't what I said. I said that it's theoretically possible for any of the other preferences, in combination with T, to result in what could fairly be viewed as T-related characteristics that might affect chess-playing ability.


Yes, and I gave you this answer:

"That would be TJ and NTJ. Can you give me a plausible explanation? How do we go from TJ or NTJ to 'chess-playing ability'?

Judging:

"I like to have things decided.
I appear to be task oriented.
I like to make lists of things to do.
I like to get my work done before playing.
I plan work to avoid rushing just before a deadline.
Sometimes I focus so much on the goal that I miss new information."

-------

reckful:

Please either read my actual posts and respond to them or don't respond at all.
The Real MBTI Model says that the thinking-related ways — assuming you're using "thinking" in a T/F sense — in which INTJs typically differ from INTPs reflect differences associated with TJ-vs.-TP, ITJ-vs.-ITP, and NTJ-vs.-NTP. And that the thinking-related ways in which INTJs and ENTJs are typically similar reflect characteristics associated with T, NT, TJ and NTJ.

Tellus:

INTJ = I + N + T + J + IN + IT + IJ + NT + NJ + TJ + INT + INJ + ITJ + NTJ + INTJ

INTJ-ENTJ: T, NT, TJ, NTJ

INTJ-INTP: T, NT, IT, INT

This is still problematic. You are saying that INTJ uses Thinking in the same way as ENTJ _and_ INTP. That is simply not true. Your model contradicts our observations, Jung, Myers, Grant, SSS and classical Socionics.

---------

This is a different discussion. You are claiming that INTJ's Thinking is similar to INTP's Thinking as well. 



> If it was the case — and again, you haven't provided any source for that assertion — that INTJs are "high level" chess players and INTPs aren't — then I would expect the explanation to lie in one or more of the MBTI-influenced characteristics associated with J-vs.-P (including combinations like NJ-vs.-NP, TJ-vs.-TP, and NTJ-vs.-NTP).


Let's assume INTJs are high level chess players and INTPs are not. Now I wonder how you go from a combination of Judging, Intuition and Thinking to 'chess-playing ability' (see description of Judging above).



> And any of the T-inclusive combinations — not just TJ (which you like to call "Te") and TP (which you like to call "Ti") — might not only turn out to be relevant, but might also be something that could fairly be characterized as how INTJs and INTPs "use Thinking" (your words).


I don't think TJ corresponds to Te. If so, what does NTJ correspond to? J/P is either a “pointer variable” or it is an independent dichotomy. TJ is a category mistake.

INTJ does not have NTP in your model. What exactly do you mean by that? Does INTJ use, for example, NTP unconsciously?



> And I also noted that I disagreed with assuming up front that the only MBTI-related influences on chess-playing must be limited to T (or T combinations). If INTJs are really much superior to INTPs in chess-playing ability (and again, you haven't given me any reason to think that's true), I'd tend to suspect that it would also turn out to be the case that INFJs were superior to INFPs in chess-playing ability.


No, because you need both Ni and Te (or "NTJ"). 

Btw, I am not saying that INTJs are superior to INTPs in chess-playing ability. Both types have 4D Ni and 3D Te (D, dimensionality, is about function strength in Socionics). Instead, I am saying that INTJs and ENTJs actually play chess at a high level, and INTPs don't. There's a difference between a conscious NiTe and an unconscious NiTe. 



> You offered up a limited list of J characteristics and asked how they could affect chess-playing ability — but nobody knows what the full list of characteristics associated with the MBTI and Big Five clusters is. That's one of the reason psychologists keep doing studies. If two types who differ only on J/P also differ substantially (on average) in connection with some correlated thing (e.g., chess-playing ability), then that certainly suggests that there's something about J/P (either by itself or in combination with one or more other preferences) that has an impact on that correlated thing.


But how can you argue for MBTI dichotomies or "The Real MBTI Model" if J/P is incomplete? 



> What do you mean, what do I mean by source? You made a factual assertion that "INTJs and ENTJs play chess at a high level, and INTPs do not." What's your basis for that assertion?


I mean our observations and descriptions of the types. 

https://www.truity.com/personality-type/INTJ 

"Source: MBTI Manual"

"INTJs are perceptive about systems and strategy, and often understand the world as a _chess board_ to be navigated. They want to understand how systems work, and how events proceed: the INTJ often has a unique ability to foresee logical outcomes. They enjoy applying themselves to a project or idea in depth, and putting in concentrated effort to achieve their goals."


*******************************************************************************




reckful said:


> I mentioned the notion that the J means an INTJ's intuition is somehow "introverted" (while an INTP's is "extraverted"), and you said you agreed with my jaundiced take on that notion.


No, I did not. Ni does not correspond to Intuition + Introversion in my view. Ni itself is a cognitive function. But that is Grant's and Myers' point of view, right?

I was asking you about the data.



> I also mentioned the notion that INTJs are really Ps on the inside. That's a second example of treating the four preferences in an interrelated way (unsupported by any evidence) that ends up conflicting with the preferences themselves.


Who is claiming that?

If we are using functions, then INTJ (ILI, INTp in Socionics) is an irrational type... NiTe... hence 'p'.



> If your understanding is that that -0.49% means that half the MBTI J's were below-average in Conscientiousness (and half the P's were above-average), that's not what that number means.


No, that is not my understanding. Btw, I said 50% correlation, not 0.50%.



> Far from being a "big problem with the MBTI dichotomies," McCrae and Costa said that the correlations they found on all four MBTI dichotomies demonstrated an "impressive level of convergence" with the corresponding Big Five factors, and it led McCrae and Costa to conclude that the MBTI was essentially tapping into the same real, underlying personality dimensions as four of the Big Five — and doing a sufficiently respectable job of it that it led McCrae and Costa to suggest that their fellow Big Five psychologists could benefit by reviewing the MBTI's "extensive empirical literature" (i.e., the existing body of MBTI studies) for additional insights into the four dimensions of personality that the typologies share, as well as for "valuable replications" of Big Five studies.


Are you suggesting that a 50% correlation is good? (We are assuming that Big Five/Conscientiousness is truly scientific.)



> I agree with that, but it just means you shouldn't view the four MBTI dimensions as "truly dichotomous" (in the sense in which McCrae & Costa were using that term). I view that whole issue as a red herring for the most part, and there's more discussion of that in the Discrete bimodal types section of Another MBTI Debunking.
> And again, that wasn't a criticism of the MBTI as a whole.


But if they aren't truly dichotomous, where are INTJ's Feeling and Sensing (in your view)?



> If your thought is based on a misunderstanding that there are "later editions" of the (Step I) MBTI Manual than the 1998 one, that is incorrect. And as I said, the 1998 edition (the latest) continued to present Fi-Ne-Se-Te as the official MBTI position, while acknowledging that Grant and others disagreed.


OK



> My l-o-n-g discussion of that issue can be found here.


"I think she was mistaken"

So Fi-Ni-Se-Te is _your_ interpretation, right?


----------



## thehotelambush (Apr 26, 2018)

Tellus said:


> Yes... but aren't those just a consequence of how many of the Jungian dichotomies that are combined. Has he explained why the dichotomies can be viewed as a Klein 4-group?


Actually the full dichotomy system is a Z2^4 group (or vector space), where the operation is interleaving as described in the pdf. (The info in the article there is very old and has been superseded, actually the most current version is here.)


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Nooooo why on earth would you deliberately apply maths to socionics??


----------



## thehotelambush (Apr 26, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> Nooooo why on earth would you deliberately apply maths to socionics??


Because socionics is a mathematical system. The relationships form an algebraic structure called a group.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Well, if it were mathematical, it would be capable of being measured, but since the units of measure and what is being measured, objectively, have never been defined...

Relationships in Socionics are just relativity. They have "more"s, they have "less"s, but numbers are not considered.

The portion of the human brain which utilizes the classification of objects is the part of the brain which deals with sensations: Si. The portion of the brain which formulates the ordering of moving objects is the pre-motor cortex: Ti. So, with Socionics you have a near non-existent discrete classification, yet the continuous reordering of said objects.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

thehotelambush said:


> Because socionics is a mathematical system. The relationships form an algebraic structure called a group.


It doesn't seem to be anything like maths. It's a model using the 8 functions. you can't make calculations from them, get this result in the units being measured and use the result to make an estimated measure of whatever the subject is. There are also no numbers (to measure quantities and such) or equations involved. No idea how it could classed as an algebraic structure. 

Socionics is a theory only, don't think maths should be associated with it.


----------



## thehotelambush (Apr 26, 2018)

Just read the paper guys. If you don't get why it's mathematical then maybe you should go back to MBTI.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

It's not mathematical. You don't just enumerate things and then call them mathematical.


----------

