# Socionics compatibility without evidence?



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

I read Keirsey's book, so I am coming into this biased--I have noticed that a lot of contradictions exist between the Socionics compatibility theory and Keirsey's. What gives?

Keirsey's theory seems to be more based on empirical evidence. He didn't try to organize the types into pairings according to what "made sense" to him--he just compiled the data of his research and figured out which pairs tend to end up together. He found it was SP with SJ, and NT with NF. He suggested a hypothesis about how the I/E and other variables would work out, but he was careful not to claim that part of his hypothesis substantiated by clear evidence. Simple, incisive, strictly deductive (Keirsey was INTP)... 

His reasoning seems a lot more compelling than the socionics compatibility theory. Not that I don't think the duality partners are bad matches--most of them are okay according to Keirsey--but the socionics compatibility theory seems to be based on something other than supporting evidence. Am I wrong about this?

I don't know much about Socionics--just a bit from reading the Wiki page and what I've already gleaned off of the Keirseyian forums. 

If anyone can give me insight into this vexing problem, I would love to listen!


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Taken straight from socionics.com: "Socionics intertype relations describe _relationship between Psychological Types of people and not between the actual people._ This is the reason these relations are called "intertype" relations. The relations between actual people are complicated and depend on many different factors.

"Knowing the intertype relations mechanism can help you to avoid many problems created by incompatible types."


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

absyrd said:


> Taken straight from socionics.com: "Socionics intertype relations describe _relationship between Psychological Types of people and not between the actual people._ This is the reason these relations are called "intertype" relations. The relations between actual people are complicated and depend on many different factors.
> 
> "Knowing the intertype relations mechanism can help you to avoid many problems created by incompatible types."


But then...if it isn't jiving with the evidence, wouldn't that indicate that there might be a flaw in the theory? I mean, Keirsey didn't just look at all marriages and count; he compared first marriages to second marriages and found that, in second marriages, the NF/NT and SP/SJ preferences even more pronounced. 

I dunno. What makes you a believer?


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

dawilliams said:


> But then...if it isn't jiving with the evidence, wouldn't that indicate that there might be a flaw in the theory? I mean, Keirsey didn't just look at all marriages and count; he compared first marriages to second marriages and found that, in second marriages, the NF/NT and SP/SJ preferences even more pronounced.
> 
> I dunno. What makes you a believer?


I've personally influenced social situations by introducing/pinning specific psychological types together in order to observe their interactions and compare the relations to the Socionics theory. From my personal experience and from countless observations, Relations of Activity and Dual compatibility are very psychologically fulfilling. For example, My ESFP friend instantly activated with an ENTJ and an INTJ, just as Socionics writes it. I have observed "conflicting relations" (ENTP and ISFP, not myself) and deemed the two socially incompatible from the get-go. I have also observed my own relations with people and found the descriptions to be uncanny in many occasions, particularly the "Relation of Supervision" with my INFP ex.

Basically, with Socionics, I've had to create the "empirical evidence" through personal observations, and my own observations have made me a believer in the theory.


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

absyrd said:


> I've personally influenced social situations by introducing/pinning specific psychological types together in order to observe their interactions and compare the relations to the Socionics theory. From my personal experience and from countless observations, Relations of Activity and Dual compatibility are very psychologically fulfilling. For example, My ESFP friend instantly activated with an ENTJ and an INTJ, just as Socionics writes it. I have observed "conflicting relations" (ENTP and ISFP, not myself) and deemed the two socially incompatible from the get-go. I have also observed my own relations with people and found the descriptions to be uncanny in many occasions, particularly the "Relation of Supervision" with my INFP ex.
> 
> Basically, with Socionics, I've had to create the "empirical evidence" through personal observations, and my own observations have made me a believer in the theory.


It makes good sense--until it contradicts the evidence, imo. 

Myers-Briggs also makes a lot of sense--the gist of it plays well into real life--until you get into the details, many of which are misleading or erroneous. I think that's why so many people are confused at PerCafe--because they read too far into the MBTI and developed a distorted understanding of reality.

Keirsey--INTP, as I mentioned before--went through the MBTI with a NT flashlight, comparing what was being said to what was actually happening all around him. He corrected a few key mistakes, clarified the articulation of the types, and offered his profound deductive insights--et, voilà--he improved a good theory to make it even better!

If someone could do this with socionics, perhaps they would find the same thing: the gist is good, but some of the details may be off. 

BTW, Carl Jung, Myers-Briggs, and likely whoever created Socionics were NFs. That means they have strong inductive intuition and can "see" the broader strokes of humanity with an uncannily accurate eye. What they did is incredible--to come up with these profoundly accurate theories out of their heads and hearts! But NFs are piss poor with deductive logic, and are not interested in substantiating their theories with evidence. Which means they tend to make a lot of mistakes on the details. 

Something to think about.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

dawilliams said:


> It makes good sense--until it contradicts the evidence, imo.
> 
> Myers-Briggs also makes a lot of sense--the gist of it plays well into real life--until you get into the details, many of which are misleading or erroneous. I think that's why so many people are confused at PerCafe--because they read too far into the MBTI and developed a distorted understanding of reality.
> 
> ...


Could you send me a good source for Keirsey's expansion upon of psychological types along with its empirical data for intertype compatibility?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

dawilliams said:


> BTW, Carl Jung, Myers-Briggs, and likely whoever created Socionics were NFs. That means they have strong inductive intuition and can "see" the broader strokes of humanity with an uncannily accurate eye. What they did is incredible--to come up with these profoundly accurate theories out of their heads and hearts! But NFs are piss poor with deductive logic, and are not interested in substantiating their theories with evidence. Which means they tend to make a lot of mistakes on the details.


Except that Augusta was a ILE (NeTi) sociologist who sought to understand why perfectly normal families she studied were otherwise unhappy, and who ultimately went with and expanded upon Jung's system because she found it to be more systematic and logical than other theories she studied. You may want to read this.


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

absyrd said:


> Could you send me a good source for Keirsey's expansion upon of psychological types along with its empirical data for intertype compatibility?


His book--Please Understand Me II. Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence: David Keirsey: 9781885705020: Amazon.com: Books 

The Keirsey website is a good abstract, but it doesn't go into much depth.


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Except that Augusta was a ILE (NeTi) sociologist who sought to understand why perfectly normal families she studied were otherwise unhappy, and who ultimately went with and expanded upon Jung's system because she found it to be more systematic and logical than other theories she studied. You may want to read this.


So socionic compatibility also claims some empirical data, even though the conclusions conflict. Interesting...

I would love to know who's right. In the meantime, all we've got are theories...


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

dawilliams said:


> So socionic compatibility also claims some empirical data, even though the conclusions conflict. Interesting...
> 
> I would love to know who's right. In the meantime, all we've got are theories...


I personally don't touch Keirsey with a ten-foot pole; regardless, the types are not compatible across the systems (nor are the building blocks the same), which has been proven in a later exercise in that article I linked you to. Given that fact, why should their intertypes have to match?


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I personally don't touch Keirsey with a ten-foot pole; regardless, the types are not compatible across the systems (nor are the building blocks the same), which has been proven in a later exercise in that article I linked you to. Given that fact, why should their intertypes have to match?


I'm aware of some disconnect of typing across the theories...no idea what I am according to socionics. 

Any reason for your anti-Keirsey vehemence?


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

In fact, it _is _possible that both theories are correct. Both are derived from the original work of Jung, but it is probable that the two theories diverged in how they define each variable spectrum. I know Keirsey thought Jung's understanding of the variables to be ill-explained--it's possible that he redefined them one way, Augusta took them in another direction, and so what an ENFP looks like according to Keirsey would look like something else according to socionics.

Which would mean that any correct compatibility theory would look completely different according to the divergent type definitions. 

On the other hand, the socionics definition of ENFP tends to describe me pretty well...or not. I can't really tell. 

Funny.


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

So I've has a night to mull over this, and here are my thoughts--

Socionics compatibility theory seems to be based upon functionality--i.e., what the pair can accomplish by together contributing all sides of the equation and focusing them in one direction, either J or P. This compelling, especially if the primary focus of the relationship is function, especially working relationships, etc. My husband's boss is his duality partner, and they work splendidly together. His sister is also his duality partner, and they also have a tight relationship, often seeking out each other for input on their latest projects or ideas. 

However, Keirsey found that people tend to be romantically attracted based on their ability to communicate with one another--i.e. either the shared N or the shared S. (According to K, N's think and communicate abstractly, S's think and communicate non-abstractly). With regards to romance, he found that linear functionality is less important to folks than intimacy.

You always hear older folks admonishing their budding adults that the most important aspect of any marriage is the ability to communicate, right? Keirsey's evidence supports their speculative wisdom. 

Anecdotally, moreover, Keirsey's theory seems to carry more weight. Before I even knew about personality theories, I fell in love with two of my Keirseyian matches, INTJs (who happen to be my conflicting partners according to socionics)--marrying the latter. Out of my immediate family, five of the eight marriages are Keirseyian NF on NT, at least three of them perfect Keirseyian matches (opposite E/I and J/P preferences). I know that's anecdotal, but I see how well it works out between us, and I just want everyone here to know.

I hear a lot of skepticism regarding how an E/I, or an F/T, or a P/J match would work out, but these skeptics don't realize the communication potential of the shared N. Even when our conflicting preferences got in the way (as they sometimes did when we were younger) my INTJ husband and I could always talk freely with each other and know that we're being heard and understood. Out of this mutual understanding, we learned respect each other's preferences, and even find them fascinating. 

Especially if each party matures enough to express their contradicting preferences in positive, constructing ways, these "opposites" become a source of balance to the other. DH has given me direction and focus, a degree of stability to nurture my creative potential. I offer him insight into his human relationships and optimism to buoy his doom and gloom premonitions. Within our intimacy of communication, we share a panoramic view of the world around us; always a ticket to the other side of the human spectrum. 

Our marital functionality becomes also panoramic--rather than linear in direction, as it would in a Socionics duality match. This is especially helpful when having children because the temperament of the child is impossible to choose... (except that there tends to be a degree of genetic preference after the parents. For instance, we have an ENTJ son and an INFP son. Based on the prevalence of the S in the world, I suspect the N is more of a recessive trait.) 

Moreover, my husband's parents were a beneficiary match to the father (INTP<ISTJ) and, yes, they ran a highly functional household. Offhand, it was rather successful; they had four kids who all grew up to be successful, contributing members of society. But their ability to communicate with one another was (and is still) atrocious. After years of emotional estrangement, feeling misunderstood and micro-managed, his father left his mother for...an INFJ. A Keirseyian match. 12 years later, they're still together, second marriage for both; husband never saw his dad happier.

Besides what empirical evidence Keirsey offers, I realize that I am speculating mostly off of anecdotal evidence. (Of course, then, both Jung and Myers-Briggs did the same, and look what they came up with, right? That NFP is rather good, wouldn't you say?)

I just find it interesting that--whether or not the relationship works out--Keirseyian matches at PerC nearly always describe each other in terms of "instant connection," "chemical attraction," even "great sex" whereas socionic duality partners seem to find each other...requiring a great deal of maturity in order to appreciate (which is probably right, btw.)

My honest opinion? Socionics compatibility is an overwrought convoluted mess which offers only slight insight into the human condition as well as _lots _of bad dating advice. 

P.S. Keirsey's compatibility theory differs from the MBTI compatibility theory. Some folks get them confused, which is unfortunate, since MB's compatibility theory was as bad, if not worse, than socionics'.


----------



## Tutankhamun (May 11, 2013)

dawilliams said:


> I read Keirsey's book, so I am coming into this biased--I have noticed that a lot of contradictions exist between the Socionics compatibility theory and Keirsey's. What gives?
> 
> Keirsey's theory seems to be more based on empirical evidence. He didn't try to organize the types into pairings according to what "made sense" to him--he just compiled the data of his research and figured out which pairs tend to end up together. He found it was SP with SJ, and NT with NF. He suggested a hypothesis about how the I/E and other variables would work out, but he was careful not to claim that part of his hypothesis substantiated by clear evidence. Simple, incisive, strictly deductive (Keirsey was INTP)...
> 
> ...


I have experience with both socionics duality (I'm SLE/ESTP) and with Keirsey-compatible types (with LSIs/ISTJs and ESE/ESFJs (I realize LSIs might not always be regarded as SJs, but I definitely don't fit with SLIs)), 

When it comes to getting things I am naturally interested in done - meaning earning money, getting a great job, have external success, be powerful, building things in the real world, have a nice looking house, etc - the keirsey types seem to fit me more. They sort of like my focus and help me succeed with it, even if it sometimes feels competitive. On the other hand, I seem to end up a bit unhappy internally with these types - I seem to lack meaning, especially over time. The more time I spend wiht them, the less balanced I feel, and the more I long for something deeper and more real, often without knowing it, though, as we both seek more and more external success or at least we seek some sort of building reality better/more beautiful/stronger/safer, etc.etc.

With IEIs, on the other hand, I end up a bit unhappy about the slow progress in materialistic matters, as I have to pull the whole load alone often, and I don't even feel appreciated for it. However, I end up feeling more balanced internally, especially over time, as some sort of introverted reality and focus seeps in. I start seeing that building things and striving for materialistic gain isn't all that important - it all dies with us anyway, at least the joy *I* can have of it, dies with me. Having meaning and happiness and being present to myself, my inner experience and to other people becomes more important, and with that comes calmness and inner stability. I have trouble doing that on my own, but around IEIs that focus just happens. 

Socionics duality balances me and connects me to the meaning of life, but also makes me more lazy. I can be frustrated and impatient with their lack of drive. Keirsey stuff makes me more active and successful, and can give a lot of intense happy moments when I "win" something. But over time, this leaves me unhappy on a deeper level.

I guess there are positives and negatives to both, but I think I prefer IEIs overall. LSIs are not too bad, though, and I guess I prefer E6s to E4s. LSIs can be E6s, IEIs are not E6s.


----------



## JWC3 (Jun 4, 2012)

dawilliams said:


> So socionic compatibility also claims some empirical data, even though the conclusions conflict. Interesting...
> 
> I would love to know who's right. In the meantime, all we've got are theories...


"Conclusions conflict" what?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

dawilliams said:


> BTW, Carl Jung, Myers-Briggs, and likely whoever created Socionics were NFs.


Actually, most primary socionics theorists are NTs e.g. Augusta, who created socionics, is an ILE (or ENTP), Victor Gulenko is an LII (or INTP) and so on. It's not void of feelers, Filatova typed herself as EII (or INFP), but they were definitely not the ones providing the primary theoretical ground. The NTs did.

As for the other comments, I think it is likely Myers could have been an ESFJ or ISFJ, not INFP she is widely recognized as, because if she was an INFP, I think this would have been better reflected in how she tries to measure the functions in the MBTI test. But instead we see her drawing an analogy between that F is more akin to Fe, for instance. This is extremely suggestive of her own preferences, in my opinion. 

Jung also identified himself as TiNi though many agree he's more likely to have been an IEI in socionics or INFJ. Keirsey I think is most likely being an ISFJ. So when it comes to personality type theory, no, not everyone is an intuitive and a feeler. Everyone can theorize, it's not explicit to NTs or NFs.



absyrd said:


> Could you send me a good source for Keirsey's expansion upon of psychological types along with its empirical data for intertype compatibility?


You'd be hard-pressed to find any such information as Keirsey outright denies the existence of functions and thus also, Carl Jung's idea of psychological types. He essentially utilizes MBTI terminology but his theory is something entirely unrelated at the core, because his theory doesn't attempt to describe psychological types but something else. I think it's actually thus fairer to refer Keirsey's types as _personality_ types, as opposed to psychological types. 

If you want an introduction to Keirsey, he's written books about it called "Please Understand Me" that consists as a series. I think there are at least two of those released as of date.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> You'd be hard-pressed to find any such information as Keirsey outright denies the existence of functions and thus also, Carl Jung's idea of psychological types. He essentially utilizes MBTI terminology but his theory is something entirely unrelated at the core, because his theory doesn't attempt to describe psychological types but something else.


I understand what Keirsey means to do and respect its empirical data, but it does nothing to substantiate Carl Jung's original theory, the _innovator_ of this entire system...

I wish there was American literature that expanded on the actual psychological types theory to uncover more about function interrelation. All we have that comes close is the translated text of Socionics, which none of us can prove with recorded and published empirical data.

MBTI expansion should stick to its roots -- what Carl Jung originally envisioned. Otherwise it becomes an entirely different system indeed, and a rather useless one for theoretical abstraction.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

absyrd said:


> I understand what Keirsey means to do and respect its empirical data, but it does nothing to substantiate Carl Jung's original theory, the _innovator_ of this entire system...
> 
> I wish there was American literature that expanded on the actual psychological types theory to uncover more about function interrelation. All we have that comes close is the translated text of Socionics, which none of us can prove with recorded and published empirical data.
> 
> MBTI expansion should stick to its roots -- what Carl Jung originally envisioned. Otherwise it becomes an entirely different system indeed, and a rather useless one for theoretical abstraction.


Yes, and I think there are problems with Keirsey's theory in that he still retains MBTI terminology. It would be better if he tried to come up with something else that's workable for him but doesn't make that association, since as you say, he doesn't deal with the psychological nature of human cognition as much as he deals with something else and I'd loosely call it personality in lack of a better term.

And it may be empirical in its own sense, though it is the kind of empiri I don't personally support, appreciate or enjoy, because precisely as you put it, he doesn't provide with deeper theoretical abstraction. There is no how or why involved and I find it very intellectually unfulfilling. 

As for MBTI itself, I think it's a troublesome system in that it diverges so greatly. On the one end you have function theory, but on the other you have simple dichotomies. MBTI tries to bridge the two, but I don't think it's possible without overhauling the system completely and scratching what I find to be irrelevant elements, in this case, the four-letter code. That's what complicates the system because the four-letter code represents the functions so poorly. 

That's an entirely different matter, though.


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

Tutankhamun said:


> I have experience with both socionics duality (I'm SLE/ESTP) and with Keirsey-compatible types (with LSIs/ISTJs and ESE/ESFJs (I realize LSIs might not always be regarded as SJs, but I definitely don't fit with SLIs)),
> 
> When it comes to getting things I am naturally interested in done - meaning earning money, getting a great job, have external success, be powerful, building things in the real world, have a nice looking house, etc - the keirsey types seem to fit me more. They sort of like my focus and help me succeed with it, even if it sometimes feels competitive. On the other hand, I seem to end up a bit unhappy internally with these types - I seem to lack meaning, especially over time. The more time I spend wiht them, the less balanced I feel, and the more I long for something deeper and more real, often without knowing it, though, as we both seek more and more external success or at least we seek some sort of building reality better/more beautiful/stronger/safer, etc.etc.
> 
> ...


It could be that you aren't actually an S? The MBTI test isn't always accurate. It gives a lot of false results, especially to NFs, from what I've seen. Keirsey found contradictions in the way Jung, then Myers-Briggs defined some of the type preferences; notably the E/I, and the S/N. 

His temperament sorter seems more accurate in my experience. It can only tell you two of your preferences--determine if you are SJ, SP, NT, or NF; but it's a grounding. His book offers more thorough portraits of the various types, and from there, it is easier to figure out the other two.

If you are, for instance, ENTP, then your preference for INFP would make a lot of sense according to Keirsey.

But, maybe you are ESTJ. In that case, it's pretty fascinating what you say. I concede there may be something special about your duality partner; perhaps socionics is onto something there. But I still don't think it's a full blown match. 

Your full "Keirseyian match" would be ISFJ, but you're right that he recommends SJ's more generally to SPs. Maybe you haven't found the right ISFJ? It's his finding that these types tend to prefer each other measurably, and that they tend to feel very fulfilled within these relationships--very much according to Disney's Lady and the Tramp (the archtypal ESTP-ISFJ romance). 

Anyway, thanks for the input. You sound like a great person, and I hope you find a partner to match you whatever the theory!


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

JWC3 said:


> "Conclusions conflict" what?


Socionic and Keirseyian compatibility theories conclusions conflict one another.


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Actually, most primary socionics theorists are NTs e.g. Augusta, who created socionics, is an ILE (or ENTP), Victor Gulenko is an LII (or INTP) and so on. It's not void of feelers, Filatova typed herself as EII (or INFP), but they were definitely not the ones providing the primary theoretical ground. The NTs did.
> 
> As for the other comments, I think it is likely Myers could have been an ESFJ or ISFJ, not INFP she is widely recognized as, because if she was an INFP, I think this would have been better reflected in how she tries to measure the functions in the MBTI test. But instead we see her drawing an analogy between that F is more akin to Fe, for instance. This is extremely suggestive of her own preferences, in my opinion.
> 
> ...


Keirsey identifies himself as INTP according to his own theory. If you read his books, you'll he is _not _an ISFJ, certainly not according to how he defines them, nor according to how anyone else defines them. 

Myers-Briggs also identified herself as NFP. Considering the abstract nature of her theory, and the unstructured way in which she approached its formulation, I would hesitate to contradict her. 

As for your other conclusions, you seem to be using a different method of identifying type preferences than I am used to. 

And to invalidate Keirsey's theory on such semantics as "personality theory" rather than "psychological types", or his "denying the existence of functions" (??) seems a tad silly. His goal is the same goal as any typing theory: to systematize human behavior in such a way as to help us better understand social realities.

Have you read his books?


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

absyrd said:


> I understand what Keirsey means to do and respect its empirical data, but it does nothing to substantiate Carl Jung's original theory, the _innovator_ of this entire system...
> 
> I wish there was American literature that expanded on the actual psychological types theory to uncover more about function interrelation. All we have that comes close is the translated text of Socionics, which none of us can prove with recorded and published empirical data.
> 
> MBTI expansion should stick to its roots -- what Carl Jung originally envisioned. Otherwise it becomes an entirely different system indeed, and a rather useless one for theoretical abstraction.


I agree--it would be nice to have Keirsey combined with a Functions system. Maybe you should try;-)

I think the reason Keirsey opposed going into functions lay in the primary difficulty of typing people accurately. Both Jung and Myers Briggs did a good job of differentiating the types, but their ability to do it accurately, or to portray each type with any degree of depth, as I've said before, was riddled with holes. So instead of expanding the theory, Keirsey set about to deepen the gist of it. He strengthened our ability to type people accurately, articulately, and with great insight into their unique set of skills, intelligences, and perspectives. What each type looks like as children. What each type looks for in a romantic partner. How each type goes about problem solving. 

I see all sorts of mumbo jumbo on these boards, people trying to analyze this or that according to each other's functions. Sometimes, it makes wonderful sense. Other times, they seem to be drowning in their own thoughts. Often, I see people who don't really know who they are, or who anyone else is, floating between 2 or 5 possibilities.

You can't understand the cardiovascular system without first analyzing and identifying the primary components-- the heart, the veins, the lungs, etc. With a poor grounding in the essential vocabulary, any theory you come up with is going to be subjective, probably flawed. 

I heard that in the 1920s they first saw a spiral galaxy through a telescope and all the astronomers got together in order to figure out what it was. One guy thought it was a bunch of stars and planets centered around a larger gravitational force. The other guy theorized that it was a new type of star. The other guy won the debate... for a little while.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

dawilliams said:


> Keirsey identifies himself as INTP according to his own theory. If you read his books, you'll he is _not _an ISFJ, certainly not according to how he defines them, nor according to how anyone else defines them.


Yes, according to his own theory, but according to Jung, unlikely. This is why I think Keirsey is doing something entirely unrelated to Jung and the two shouldn't be mixed.


> Myers-Briggs also identified herself as NFP. Considering the abstract nature of her theory, and the unstructured way in which she approached its formulation, I would hesitate to contradict her.


That could equally just point towards inferior thinking in itself, since logical structure and so in is associated with Thinking in Jungian psychology. I am not sure I think Myers actually fully understood Jung and his idea of type, at least not the way I think Jung understood it. Also, Si is actually very abstract as a cognitive process. It's false to ascribe all sensation types as being concrete and focused on reality.


> As for your other conclusions, you seem to be using a different method of identifying type preferences than I am used to.


Yes, it's Jungian. 



> And to invalidate Keirsey's theory on such semantics as "personality theory" rather than "psychological types", or his "denying the existence of functions" (??) seems a tad silly. His goal is the same goal as any typing theory: to systematize human behavior in such a way as to help us better understand social realities.


Why is it silly when he himself has claimed as much? Are you denying his own words on the matter? And the goal may be similar but their conceptualization of reality is _not_. The reason why Jung called his types psychological types is because it has to do with one's psychological makeup: how type informs, determines and dictates people's psyches. Keirsey doesn't try to describe human psychology; he tries to describe something much closer to a generic understanding of human personality. 



> Have you read his books?


I honestly don't want to. I could equally ask you here, but have you read Jung?


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, and I think there are problems with Keirsey's theory in that he still retains MBTI terminology. It would be better if he tried to come up with something else that's workable for him but doesn't make that association, since as you say, he doesn't deal with the psychological nature of human cognition as much as he deals with something else and I'd loosely call it personality in lack of a better term.
> 
> And it may be empirical in its own sense, though it is the kind of empiri I don't personally support, appreciate or enjoy, because precisely as you put it, he doesn't provide with deeper theoretical abstraction. There is no how or why involved and I find it very intellectually unfulfilling.
> 
> ...


You can't "provide deeper theoretical abstraction" until you first identify the essentials. The simple stuff. Otherwise, the "deeper theoretical abstraction" is mere hot air. 

Seriously, have you read Keirsey? His conclusions are simple, but that doesn't mean they lack depth.


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, according to his own theory, but according to Jung, unlikely. This is why I think Keirsey is doing something entirely unrelated to Jung and the two shouldn't be mixed.
> 
> That could equally just point towards inferior thinking in itself, since logical structure and so in is associated with Thinking in Jungian psychology. I am not sure I think Myers actually fully understood Jung and his idea of type, at least not the way I think Jung understood it. Also, Si is actually very abstract as a cognitive process. It's false to ascribe all sensation types as being concrete and focused on reality.
> 
> ...


No, I haven't studied Jung's psychological type theory in depth--but neither am I dismissing its claim to validity. 

I have a lot of respect for what Jung did. But, imo, he was only the first, and the people after him were able to take what he did and build on it, contributing their own insights and perspectives. His theory has evolved--on one side, it went Myers-Briggs, then Keirsey; on the other it went Socionics. Granted, socionics stays truer to the original.

Staying true to the original makes no sense if parts of the original theory are flawed--which is what Keirsey contends. It's fine if you think his theory is too pedestrian for your taste, but I think you're overly hasty in your disparagement of its value. 

And, yes, according to Keirsey, the S prefers non-abstract thinking/communication, whereas the N prefers abstract. It was one of the clarifications of the Jungian/Myers-Briggs theory which he contributed, and quite a compelling one imo. But I agree--we have a divergent understanding of the type preferences, and I can respect that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

dawilliams said:


> No, I haven't studied Jung's psychological type theory in depth--but neither am I dismissing its claim to validity.
> 
> I have a lot of respect for what Jung did. But, imo, he was only the first, and the people after him were able to take what he did and build on it, contributing their own insights and perspectives. His theory has evolved--on one side, it went Myers-Briggs, then Keirsey; on the other it went Socionics. Granted, socionics stays truer to the original.
> 
> Staying true to the original makes no sense if parts of the original theory are flawed--which is what Keirsey contends. It's fine if you think his theory is too pedestrian for your taste, but I think you're overly hasty in your disparagement of its value.


How can you even compare apples to pears to begin more than contend they might be two types of fruit? That is precisely what I'm expressing. I don't enjoy or appreciate Keirsey, I am very clear on this, but did I ever invalidate his findings? No, I didn't. I just don't find his ideas personally interesting or very fulfilling theoretically, which I already expressed. But not once did I claim that his theory is incapable of doing what it attempts to do. I do however think what he _is _doing is very far removed from Jung. 



> And, yes, according to Keirsey, the S prefers non-abstract thinking/communication, whereas the N prefers abstract. It was one of the clarifications of the Jungian/Myers-Briggs theory which he contributed, and quite a compelling one imo. But I agree--we have a divergent understanding of the type preferences, and I can respect that.


Yes, and this is one of the reasons why I think Keirsey has nothing to do with Jung since he clearly contradicts Jung on this matter. It has nothing to do with staying true to the original even, but more with the goal with the theory itself. Keirsey's types attempt to predict human behavior, Jung's types attempt to predict human psychology which might or might not result in what Keirsey observes in people when it comes to what is being the source of behavior. 

Take two people who enjoy fishing. Keirsey might content they are sensors because they both enjoy doing a concrete kind of behavior, but Jung might want to look deeper into why they enjoy fishing. At further inquiry it might turn out that they enjoy fishing for entirely different reasons - one likes it for the calm and how they can enjoy the environment around them, whereas the other enjoys the action when a fish is on the hook. This would to Jung actually imply a great difference between these two people who otherwise share the same interest, because the psychological motivation is different.

This is what I mean that Keirsey to me doesn't offer any intellectual depth. He never bothers to look at motivations or intent but simply describes what there is. This is also why I think Keirsey does something very different from Jung even though he utilizes MBTI terminology, since to Jung, intent is all that matters, _why_ you are the way you are, but Keirsey is more interested in looking at _how_ you are the way you are. 

Do you understand what I'm getting at?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Nobody besides maybe Kanerou will tell you Socionics is 100% factual. I can assure you, it is not. There are hardly any *valid* scientific studies done on it and there are way too many variables in the human psyche. Not to mention, a lot of typing is up to interpretation. For some people, I can make very solid arguments for 4-5 sociotypes.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Nobody besides maybe Kanerou will tell you Socionics is 100% factual.


You feel the need to mention me why?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> You feel the need to mention me why?


You've gotten quite defensive of socionics in the past, when its shortcomings were mentioned.

I didn't mention you as a sign of hostility; it was just for the sake of accuracy and truth.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> You've gotten quite defensive of socionics in the past, when its shortcomings were mentioned.


Have I ever said it's 100% factual as is, without any flaws whatsoever?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Have I ever said it's 100% factual as is, without any flaws whatsoever?


no, but you've denied quite a few flaws

see edit of previous post


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> no, but you've denied quite a few flaws
> 
> see edit of previous post


I can refute/deny perceived flaws without believing that every single aspect is true. That's your own (incorrect) assumption. And apparently you either never read or have forgotten the conversations on duality that I've had with people in this subforum.

I didn't take your mention as an attack, just as an irritation. There is no need to single me out, particularly when past actions prove that I don't consider the theory flawless.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I can refute/deny perceived flaws without believing that every single aspect is true. That's your own (incorrect) assumption. And apparently you either never read or have forgotten the conversations on duality that I've had with people in this subforum.
> 
> I didn't take your mention as an attack, just as an irritation. There is no need to single me out, particularly when past actions prove that I don't consider the theory flawless.


I thought the hyperbolic-ness would be obvious. 

You did think of it as an attack, because you responded aggressively and it "irritated you" and I was "singling you out" (an attack). I did not purposely single you out; you're just the only person on this forum I could think of that would argue for things that would be obviously false to a lot of people about socionics.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I thought the hyperbolic-ness would be obvious.


Clearly not.



> You did think of it as an attack, because you responded aggressively and it "irritated you" and I was "singling you out" (an attack).


I don't have to think you are intentionally attacking me in order to be irritated and respond accordingly. 



> I did not purposely single you out; you're just the only person on this forum I could think of that would argue for things that would be obviously false to a lot of people about socionics.


Whatever. I'm not arguing your perceptions with you. The fact remains that you didn't have to name me.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I don't have to think you are intentionally attacking me in order to be irritated and respond accordingly.


basic evolutionary and psychological concept would disagree. well, you're right with "intentionally," but you still perceived it as an attack on a primitive, emotional level



Kanerou said:


> Whatever. I'm not arguing your perceptions with you. The fact remains that you didn't have to name me.


What a wonderful thing to say so that you don't have to actually address what I said and be rational. 





I didn't intend to offend you by mentioning you in reference to people who might - hyperbolicly-speaking - consider socionics 100% factual. By saying "get over yourself, you irrational idiot," I am, however.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> What a wonderful thing to say so that you don't have to actually address what I said and be rational.


I simply don't feel like taking the time and effort that digging through/clarifying your statements and deciding the truth for myself would require. And of course, what you consider obviously wrong may not in fact be so. But that goes back to my first statement. Regardless, if considering me simply irrational makes you feel better about this whole thing, go ahead.



> I didn't intend to offend you by mentioning you in reference to people who might - hyperbolicly-speaking - consider socionics 100% factual. By saying "get over yourself, you irrational idiot," I am, however.


Yawn. Whatever. I think we're done here.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I simply don't feel like taking the time and effort that digging through/clarifying your statements and deciding the truth for myself would require.


I think we both know you're trying to falsely justify it and thereby emotionally (i.e, wrongly) validate yourself.

God, you eerily remind me of an ESI I used to be acquainted/friends with. *shudders*


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I think we both know you're trying to falsely justify it and thereby emotionally (i.e, wrongly) validate yourself.


Assume whatever bullshit you'd like. You're not worth it.


----------



## dawilliams (May 15, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> How can you even compare apples to pears to begin more than contend they might be two types of fruit? That is precisely what I'm expressing. I don't enjoy or appreciate Keirsey, I am very clear on this, but did I ever invalidate his findings? No, I didn't. I just don't find his ideas personally interesting or very fulfilling theoretically, which I already expressed. But not once did I claim that his theory is incapable of doing what it attempts to do. I do however think what he _is _doing is very far removed from Jung.
> 
> Yes, and this is one of the reasons why I think Keirsey has nothing to do with Jung since he clearly contradicts Jung on this matter. It has nothing to do with staying true to the original even, but more with the goal with the theory itself. Keirsey's types attempt to predict human behavior, Jung's types attempt to predict human psychology which might or might not result in what Keirsey observes in people when it comes to what is being the source of behavior.
> 
> ...


I do. Thanks for explaining yourself. 

I don't think you understand Keirsey though. He does consider the psychological motivations behind actions, quite in depth, actually. If he were to see two people fishing, he wouldn't automatically think "S" (although I see a lot of folks here on PerC doing stuff like that to one another.) In fact, he offers a lot of insight into why two--or four, or more--people might be fishing, all out of entirely different motivations. He would be able to explain the variety of motivations with great depth and accuracy, seeing not only how and why each person goes about the task of setting their flies, but how they interact with one another, and why their interactions happen this way as opposed to that way. Based on their psychological differences.

Perhaps I am being hasty in my dismissal of socionics compatibility--I haven't really studied it, and as we found before, we're talking about two different systems of typing people, so what an INFP is in one theory might be something else entirely in another. 



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Nobody besides maybe Kanerou will tell you Socionics is 100% factual. I can assure you, it is not. There are hardly any *valid* scientific studies done on it and there are way too many variables in the human psyche. Not to mention, a lot of typing is up to interpretation. For some people, I can make very solid arguments for 4-5 sociotypes.


But this is what I am trying to point out--Keirsey fixed this ^ problem already. There is no need to float people between types--which would contradict the point of having types at all! In fact, all the theories claim that they've solved this ^ problem--Jung, MBTI, Socionics, theoretically claim that their typology is accurate and reality-based. But Keirsey is the only theory I've seen which delivers. 

You read Keirsey and there isn't any question anymore as to what people are and why they do what they do. His theory accurately types people absolutely. That doesn't mean that they can't grow or develop or even acquire skill specialties of other temperament types--but why they hone these skills, which are naturally harder for them--is going to be psychologically rooted in their specific type.

For instance, even though I'm F, I've a developed a strong underlying T. Some PerC folk think I am a T because "I argue so well." But look closely--my T never dominates. My preference is always F. My T informs my F--perhaps strengthens my ability to carry on a rational argument (??). But, throughout this thread, my posts are carried by a F--a desire to reach out to you guys because I don't want you to do silly things in your love life based on convoluted or inaccurate theories. 

For me, all these type theories are searching for the same thing--a definable truth to human reality. There are dangers on both sides--1) theories that are too vague, erroneous, or convoluted for functional use, and 2) theories that stick people into stereotypes with little opportunity for development or growth (which isn't an official theory, but seems to be the default of many people here at PerC). 

Keirsey's theory commits neither error. He defines the a person's type as a form--a certain type of cake pan, for instance. He measures out the particulars of all the various baking pans--their relative height, weight, surface area distribution... And then he gives the person all the room they want to make their cake in it. Ultimately, how good of a cake they will turn out is entirely up to them. He calls that variable maturity. He acknowledges other variables as well--family types, formative experiences, etc. But none of those variables affect the form of the baking pan--only the cake itself.

You seem to complain a lot about Keirsey's simplicity, but I see it differently. I see his simplicity akin to the simplicity of steel--what happens after all the flaws, air bubbles, and things that ought not be there--have been purified out of iron ore. 

*gasp, pant, pant...catch my breath* 

Do you see where I'm getting at?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

dawilliams said:


> I do. Thanks for explaining yourself.
> 
> I don't think you understand Keirsey though. He does consider the psychological motivations behind actions, quite in depth, actually. If he were to see two people fishing, he wouldn't automatically think "S" (although I see a lot of folks here on PerC doing stuff like that to one another.) In fact, he offers a lot of insight into why two--or four, or more--people might be fishing, all out of entirely different motivations. He would be able to explain the variety of motivations with great depth and accuracy, seeing not only how and why each person goes about the task of setting their flies, but how they interact with one another, and why their interactions happen this way as opposed to that way. Based on their psychological differences.
> 
> Perhaps I am being hasty in my dismissal of socionics compatibility--I haven't really studied it, and as we found before, we're talking about two different systems of typing people, so what an INFP is in one theory might be something else entirely in another.


Care to give a practical example?


----------

