Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Myers-Briggs Model (INTP): Ti, Ne, Si, Fe // unconscious functions

Socionics Model A (LII): Ti, Ne, Fi, Se // unconscious functions

http://www.socioniko.net /ru/articles/talan-modelt.html

Issue 6/2006 of the 'Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology' journal

Psychophysiologicaly caused model of an information metabolism (model "T") as a basis of psychological intertype differences and intertype relationships

In development of traditional for socionics of A.Augustinavichute model (models "A") the psychophysiological model "T", using not 8 but only C.Jung's 4 psychic functions where, however, everyone is characterized at once by two parameters: thresholds on exaltation and inhibition. In addition to partial thresholds of functions the common properties of force-weakness of the individual on exaltation and inhibition are specified identical to all functions. The common threshold on exaltation determines which of four functions will be program and which - mobilization. The common threshold on inhibition sets accentuation of TIM. Extraversion and extratimness are disjointed by model and appeared quasi orthogonal properties, the first (for the individual as a whole or his separate functions) corresponds to high thresholds on the exaltation, the second - to low thresholds on inhibition. Extra/intro-version of first two functions coincides with extra/intro-version of the individual, last two - are opposite to him; extra- or introtimness corresponds to standard socionic "color" of functions (black functions are extratimed, that is they have low thresholds of inhibition). The quantity of degrees of freedom of model increases (in comparison with model "A") from 4 up to 5 and becomes adequate to the standard five-factorial model of the person. The model "T" corresponds to experimental data, is simple in comprehension and application, binds in much clearer and integrated picture the numerous facts of socionics, differential psychology, psychophysiology and physiology higher nervous activity (HNA), easily explains psychological and socionic regularity, including difficultly deduced from model "A" (including properties of TIMs, intertype relationships and the content of a part of Reining signs ); it also predicts new regularities. Besides , the model eliminates series of collisions of modern differential psychophysiology and resolves the problems of physiology HNA which has arisen in researches of scientific school Pavlov-Teplov-Nebylitsyn.

ENFp

intuition: high excitation with low inhibition

ethics: high excitation with high inhibition

sensation: low excitation with low inhibition

logics: low excitation with high inhibition
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Myers-Briggs Model (INTP): Ti, Ne, Si, Fe // unconscious functions

Socionics Model A (LII): Ti, Ne, Fi, Se // unconscious functions

?????????? ? ????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? /ru/articles/talan-modelt.html

Issue 6/2006 of the 'Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology' journal

Psychophysiologicaly caused model of an information metabolism (model "T") as a basis of psychological intertype differences and intertype relationships

In development of traditional for socionics of A.Augustinavichute model (models "A") the psychophysiological model "T", using not 8 but only C.Jung's 4 psychic functions where, however, everyone is characterized at once by two parameters: thresholds on exaltation and inhibition. In addition to partial thresholds of functions the common properties of force-weakness of the individual on exaltation and inhibition are specified identical to all functions. The common threshold on exaltation determines which of four functions will be program and which - mobilization. The common threshold on inhibition sets accentuation of TIM. Extraversion and extratimness are disjointed by model and appeared quasi orthogonal properties, the first (for the individual as a whole or his separate functions) corresponds to high thresholds on the exaltation, the second - to low thresholds on inhibition. Extra/intro-version of first two functions coincides with extra/intro-version of the individual, last two - are opposite to him; extra- or introtimness corresponds to standard socionic "color" of functions (black functions are extratimed, that is they have low thresholds of inhibition). The quantity of degrees of freedom of model increases (in comparison with model "A") from 4 up to 5 and becomes adequate to the standard five-factorial model of the person. The model "T" corresponds to experimental data, is simple in comprehension and application, binds in much clearer and integrated picture the numerous facts of socionics, differential psychology, psychophysiology and physiology higher nervous activity (HNA), easily explains psychological and socionic regularity, including difficultly deduced from model "A" (including properties of TIMs, intertype relationships and the content of a part of Reining signs ); it also predicts new regularities. Besides , the model eliminates series of collisions of modern differential psychophysiology and resolves the problems of physiology HNA which has arisen in researches of scientific school Pavlov-Teplov-Nebylitsyn.
I just wanted to bring to your attention that:

MBTI: TiNeSiFe is delineated thusly:

TiNe are conscious
SiFe are unconscious
Strength of functions is diminishing as you go(Ti > Ne > Si > Fe)

Therefore the two strongest conscious functions are:

Ti + Ne

And unconscious:

Si + Fe

If you look at model A:

ILI is the exact same thing:

Valued functions:

Conscious: Ti + Ne
Unconscious: Si + Fe

EXACTLY THE SAME!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Lord have mercy, @Tellus.

First of all, how can anybody tell from that gobbledygook abstract you quoted (and linked to) what the hell those people were testing, how they tested it, or what their results were?

And secondly, the scientifically respectable side of the MBTI is the dichotomy-centric side, and if you're interested, you can read a lot about that — with plenty of respectable and understandable citations — in this post and in this post (also linked to in the first linked post).

By contrast, not only does the INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se function model (the Harold Grant function stack) have no respectable body of scientific evidence behind it, but it also wasn't Jung's model, wasn't Myers's model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.

So if that socionics "study" you're referring to was a test of the Grant function stack — and I suspect it was, but again, who can really tell from that silly-sounding abstract, right? — it really isn't appropriate to refer to it as a test of the "Myers-Briggs Model."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,309 Posts
Why does it need to be scientific? Anyone who thinks that every human can be filed under one of 16 possibilities based on an uncontrollable and subjective questionnairie is delusional.

MBTI and friends should never be treated as absolute. They should be treated as a means to improve oneself. As Ive said in another post, if you cant find anything else in these personality tests then youve always got the work of someone else to leech off - in this case the sweeet descriptions of various processes that go on in your head and the heads of other people. That is something that is useful for anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I just wanted to bring to your attention that:

MBTI: TiNeSiFe is delineated thusly:

TiNe are conscious
SiFe are unconscious
Strength of functions is diminishing as you go(Ti > Ne > Si > Fe)

Therefore the two strongest conscious functions are:

Ti + Ne

And unconscious:

Si + Fe

If you look at model A:

ILI is the exact same thing:

Valued functions:

Conscious: Ti + Ne
Unconscious: Si + Fe

EXACTLY THE SAME!
Socionics Model A: Ti, Ne, Fi, Se // Fe, Si, Te, Ni

Four conscious (mental) funtions, and four unconscious (vital) functions

MBTI: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe // unconscious functions

You: Si, Fe are unconscious

MBTI: two conscious functions, Socionics: four conscious functions -> NOT the same!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OR more correctly:

Socionics: Fi, Se are semi-conscious

MBTI: Si, Fe are semi-conscious

NOT the same!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
Lord have mercy, @Tellus.

First of all, how can anybody tell from that gobbledygook abstract you quoted (and linked to) what the hell those people were testing, how they tested it, or what their results were?
Use Bing or Google translator and read the article.

Let's assume it is scientifically correct. ENFP's Intuition and Thinking functions are unbalanced, Sensing and Feeling are balanced... which implies that ENFP's most conscious function is Intuition and the least conscious function is Thinking. This makes sense to me. What do you think?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

В работах психофизиологической школы В.Д.Небылицына было разработано понятие парциальных порогов анализаторов. Есть порог нижний, порог обнаружения сигнала, и есть порог верхний, при его превышении и вероятность, и интенсивность ответа тоже падают. Между ними располагается зона оптимального реагирования. Для «слабосигнальных» специалистов она располагается в области низкоинтенсивных сигналов, для «сильносигнальных» – в области высокоинтенсивных сигналов. Таким образом, возбудительный вход каждого анализатора имеет фильтр, настроенный на определённый диапазон интенсивности сигналов. То же касается и тормозного входа – его входной фильтр имеет тоже свою полосу пропускания с самостоятельной и не зависимой от возбудительного входа настройкой.Если понятие анализатора мы заменим на понятие юнговской функции, то получим, что каждая из четырёх функциональных сфер характеризуется комбинацией двух входных фильтров (на возбудительном и на тормозном канале). «Парциальность», или, по-русски, «частичность» фильтров означает, что их специфическая полоса пропускания присуща только данной функциональной сфере – у других юнговских функций характеристики фильтров (высокая или низкая полоса пропускания) вполне могут быть другими.Диапазон исходящих сигналов функции соответствует настройке её возбудительного входного фильтра – ибо функция, во-первых, отвечает сигналами примерно той же интенсивности, которую воспринимает на своем входе, и, во-вторых, порождаемые функцией сигналы обязаны быть, ради обратной связи, ею же и услышаны, а поэтому также должны соответствовать настройкам входного фильтра.Функция является пластичной, гибкой, хорошо регулируемой и управляемой, если полосы пропускания её возбудительного и тормозного фильтров одинаковы. В этом случае собственные исходящие сигналы функции могут быть для неё как возбудительными, так и тормозными, то есть в состоянии осуществлять её саморегуляцию. Если же возбудительные и тормозные пороги рассогласованы по высоте, то функция становится инертной, ригидной, негибкой и непослушной, порой вплоть до навязчивости, – в лучшем случае её работа отрывается от сознательного управления и становится как бы постоянным автоматизированным фоном психики. Почему так происходит? Потому что в случае рассогласования порогов сигнал, исходящий из функции, соответствует по интенсивности возбудительному входу, но не проходит через фильтр тормозного входа и не может вызвать эффективного торможения функции.В первом случае, в случае равенства возбудительного и тормозного порогов, мы говорим об уравновешенной функции. Во втором случае – о неуравновешенной функции.Нарисуем теперь упрощенную модель «Т» для типа ИЛЭ (формула 1):
(1) вИн вЛв нСн нЭв ... ENTP: Intuition, Thinking, Sensing, Feeling

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And secondly, the scientifically respectable side of the MBTI is the dichotomy-centric side, and if you're interested, you can read a lot about that — with plenty of respectable and understandable citations — in this post and in this post (also linked to in the first linked post).
I think MBTI level 1 is just fine... however, it doesn't say very much. And how accurate are MBTI's "social extroversion/introversion" dichotomy, which is very far from Jung, and the J/P dichotomy?

INTJ: I+N+T+J

Which one is dominant, N or T? What about F and S?

How does I+N+T+J interact with other types?

By contrast, not only does the INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se function model (the Harold Grant function stack) have no respectable body of scientific evidence behind it, but it also wasn't Jung's model, wasn't Myers's model, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks.
INTJ: Ni, Te, Fi, Se is the model I am referring to. Perhaps the MBTI forum should be renamed to the Harold Grant forum :)

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

However, many MBTI practitioners hold that the tertiary function is oriented in the same direction same as the dominant function. Using the INTP type as an example, the orientation would be as follows:

Dominant introverted thinking
Auxiliary extraverted intuition
Tertiary introverted sensing
Inferior extraverted feeling

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/the-fourth-or-inferior-function.htm

"For example, if Thinking were your dominant function, Feeling would be your least-preferred function."

This is the official MBTI website, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Why does it need to be scientific? Anyone who thinks that every human can be filed under one of 16 possibilities based on an uncontrollable and subjective questionnairie is delusional.

MBTI and friends should never be treated as absolute. They should be treated as a means to improve oneself. As Ive said in another post, if you cant find anything else in these personality tests then youve always got the work of someone else to leech off - in this case the sweeet descriptions of various processes that go on in your head and the heads of other people. That is something that is useful for anyone.
Use Bing or Google translator and read the article. This is about a psychophysiological model which renders questionnaires redundant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
Use Bing or Google translator and read the article.

Let's assume it is scientifically correct. ENFP's Intuition and Thinking functions are unbalanced, Sensing and Feeling are balanced... which implies that ENFP's most consciuos function is Intuition and the least conscious function is Thinking. This makes sense to me. What do you think?
What makes N/T unbalanced? How are S/F balanced? What does "balanced" mean in this context?


I think MBTI level 1 is just fine... however, it doesn't say very much. And how accurate are MBTI's "social extroversion/introversion" dichotomy, which is very far from Jung, and the J/P dichotomy?
Have you ever read Jung's works? If you had, you'd realize how untrue the bolded statement is.

The J/P dichotomy comes from Katherine Briggs as part of her own theory.

INTJ: I+N+T+J

Which one is dominant, N or T? What about F and S?

How does I+N+T+J interact with other types?
Why?


INTJ: Ni, Te, Fi, Se is the model I am referring to. Perhaps the MBTI forum should be renamed to the Harold Grant forum :)
Or perhaps you can go to the Cognitive Functions forum if you want to talk about the functions. MBTI stands for a very specific psychometric assessment. There is a very specific theory, research, and data to support this psychometric. "MBTI" is otherwise used inappropriately as the community's loose label for an ambiguous subset of typology in general.

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

However, many MBTI practitioners hold that the tertiary function is oriented in the same direction same as the dominant function. Using the INTP type as an example, the orientation would be as follows:

Dominant introverted thinking
Auxiliary extraverted intuition
Tertiary introverted sensing
Inferior extraverted feeling
FWIW, not this MBTI certified practitioner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Socionics Model A: Ti, Ne, Fi, Se // Fe, Si, Te, Ni

Four conscious (mental) funtions, and four unconscious (vital) functions

MBTI: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe // unconscious functions

You: Si, Fe are unconscious

MBTI: two conscious functions, Socionics: four conscious functions -> NOT the same!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OR more correctly:

Socionics: Fi, Se are semi-conscious

MBTI: Si, Fe are semi-conscious

NOT the same!!
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND A THING!

Last two MBTI functions are UNCONSCIOUS and 3rd is more "powerful" than 4th. Remind you of anything?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND A THING!

Last two MBTI functions are UNCONSCIOUS and 3rd is more "powerful" than 4th. Remind you of anything?
Okay, let's assume that the last two MBTI functions are unconscious.

Which functions are unconscious in Socionics according to you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
What makes N/T unbalanced? How are S/F balanced? What does "balanced" mean in this context?
Read the article... or at least the excerpt. Machine translation is annoyingly bad, I know, but you will get an approximate understanding of this theory. Do you know of any Russian-speaking PerC members?

Have you ever read Jung's works? If you had, you'd realize how untrue the bolded statement is.
Yes, I have read Psychological Types. I am talking about Jung's definition of introversion/extroversion. His descriptions of introversion/extroversion are actually very similar to MBTI's (or Big Five) definitions.

The J/P dichotomy comes from Katherine Briggs as part of her own theory.
And...?

"INTJ: I+N+T+J
Which one is dominant, N or T? What about F and S?
How does I+N+T+J interact with other types?"

Why?
How do you determine whether N or T is dominant without the functions?

Or perhaps you can go to the Cognitive Functions forum if you want to talk about the functions. MBTI stands for a very specific psychometric assessment. There is a very specific theory, research, and data to support this psychometric. "MBTI" is otherwise used inappropriately as the community's loose label for an ambiguous subset of typology in general.
I know what MBTI stands for, but 90% of all conversations on the MBTI forum is about the functions.

Why are you avoiding this:

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/the-fourth-or-inferior-function.htm

"For example, if Thinking were your dominant function, Feeling would be your least-preferred function."

This is the official MBTI website, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
MBTI test considers me as an INTP, and a quite typical and strong one but Socionics consider me like an equivalent of INFP. That seems quite weird but i think the questions used in the test play a great role in it and can, in consequence, change the functions so that an equivalent type will have different functions because it just says what would be the nearest type from it in the other test, and not it is exactly the same. My empathy is very low and i'm very goofy (to not say the worst man on earth) when it comes to understand someone else's emotions and for this reason, i never care about this stuff. But on the other hand, i can be a very altruistic person, trying to help society to be better, trying to understand people, their actions and behavior. I am incredibly kind and devoted to my friends. We talk about everything, always in a very interesting way, even if the subjects are never axed on Feeling. I'm also quite easy to upset cause i take for myself any unpleasant remark which is not sustained by an objective evidence and get very angry internally so that i would punch the people telling them very hard if law wasn't so repressive against physical violence. My best friend is an INTJ and we both don't care about what we look like but he is not hurt about the negative remarks about him, even when they don't make sense. I find this quite amazing cause he seems to understand much better than me this is not a subhuman attitude. My family tell me i'm much too idealistic about how society works and how the human being can behave. I don't really know if this could help you to answer your question but based on what i said, i think the 2 tests complete each other.
PS : Do you think i'm more an INTP, an INFP, or something else ?
off topic
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
Well one way you can tell which dichotomy is the "strongest" in a person's type is due to the clarity of their preference in that dichotomy.

For example, one person who is INTJ might score "very clear" in the I/E dichotomy for introversion, but in the other dichotomies they might only get "moderate" or something less distinct. Meanwhile, another INTJ scores "very clear" in all three dichotomies, and only "moderate" in I/E, suggesting that they have less of a preference when it comes to I/E than the other three dimensions of their type.

Remember, type essentially amounts to having a bias. It's not necessarily "bad" to be unclear on a dimension. It just means you don't really have a strong preference. There's not even any need to go deeper than this. You don't need to look at functions in order to explain why a person lacks a clear preference, or why they show a clear preference. It could be due to any number of reasons. It is most likely about half due to their nature, and half due to conditioning from their environment.

I really don't like using functions to explain why the dichotomies exist. Granted, functions may have been the origin of those dichotomies, but we're way beyond functions now, and they are no longer necessary as an explanation. We've established that the dichotomies are real, but what actually causes them to form in a person needs to be investigated on its own. Functions are just one such explanation. Information metabolism is another. I actually really like the theory of information metabolism. It seems like a good idea, kind of like explaining space and time with string theory. It's elegant. But, it may not be the best explanation though. Obviously a great deal more research needs to be done.

At this point in the game, the only reason any theory should get tossed out is due to it being categorically false. MBTI type dynamics is one such theory, and you can talk to @reckful for more information on why type dynamics based on functional axis is self-refuting at this point, given substantial research showing that certain contradictions exist between what the data shows and what type dynamics predicts.

For any theory of "functions" to survive, it needs to take into account the substantial research that's already been done to establish the validity of the MBTI dichotomies, as well as the Big 5 traits. Function theories need to either go extinct, or adapt and change in light of current evidence. It's as simple as that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
Okay, let's assume that the last two MBTI functions are unconscious.

Which functions are unconscious in Socionics according to you?
5, 6, 7, 8.

And "MBTI" is listing IEs #6 and #5 as functions #3 and #4 respectively.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
5, 6, 7, 8.

And "MBTI" is listing IEs #6 and #5 as functions #3 and #4 respectively.

You: “Last two MBTI functions are UNCONSCIOUS and 3rd is more "powerful" than 4th. Remind you of anything…”
You (MBTI): 1, 2 are conscious and 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are unconscious.
I: “Which functions are unconscious in Socionics according to you?”
You (Socionics): “5, 6, 7, 8”
I: 5, 6, 7, 8 are four functions. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are six functions.
4 ≠ 6

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
Well one way you can tell which dichotomy is the "strongest" in a person's type is due to the clarity of their preference in that dichotomy.

For example, one person who is INTJ might score "very clear" in the I/E dichotomy for introversion, but in the other dichotomies they might only get "moderate" or something less distinct. Meanwhile, another INTJ scores "very clear" in all three dichotomies, and only "moderate" in I/E, suggesting that they have less of a preference when it comes to I/E than the other three dimensions of their type.
I apologize for a delayed reply.

You are wrong. 87% Thinking, 35% Intuition... this implies that you prefer Thinking with a probability of 87% and you prefer Feeling with a probability of 13%. It says nothing about T vs. N/S.

Remember, type essentially amounts to having a bias. It's not necessarily "bad" to be unclear on a dimension. It just means you don't really have a strong preference. There's not even any need to go deeper than this. You don't need to look at functions in order to explain why a person lacks a clear preference, or why they show a clear preference. It could be due to any number of reasons. It is most likely about half due to their nature, and half due to conditioning from their environment.

I really don't like using functions to explain why the dichotomies exist. Granted, functions may have been the origin of those dichotomies, but we're way beyond functions now, and they are no longer necessary as an explanation. We've established that the dichotomies are real, but what actually causes them to form in a person needs to be investigated on its own. Functions are just one such explanation. Information metabolism is another. I actually really like the theory of information metabolism. It seems like a good idea, kind of like explaining space and time with string theory. It's elegant. But, it may not be the best explanation though. Obviously a great deal more research needs to be done.

At this point in the game, the only reason any theory should get tossed out is due to it being categorically false. MBTI type dynamics is one such theory, and you can talk to @reckful for more information on why type dynamics based on functional axis is self-refuting at this point, given substantial research showing that certain contradictions exist between what the data shows and what type dynamics predicts.

For any theory of "functions" to survive, it needs to take into account the substantial research that's already been done to establish the validity of the MBTI dichotomies, as well as the Big 5 traits. Function theories need to either go extinct, or adapt and change in light of current evidence. It's as simple as that.
Dichotomies vs. functions is an interesting topic but this is perhaps the wrong thread. Let's discuss it anyway.

"..why type dynamics based on functional axis is self-refuting at this point, given substantial research showing that certain contradictions exist between what the data shows and what type dynamics predicts."

Can you explain this part in more detail?

Big Five and MBTI Step II are more accurate in one sense but pretty useless when it comes to typology.

"We've established that the dichotomies are real, but what actually causes them to form in a person needs to be investigated on its own. Functions are just one such explanation. Information metabolism is another."

IM and the functions are interdependent, hence Socionics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Both tests try to understand the human being in a similar approach. But this doesn't mean the results have to be the same. When 2 methods tell the same thing the same way for the same purpose, that means they have no difference so that one of the test is useless. Here, inferior functions are different and this allows both MBTI and Socionics to be useful in their very specific way and i think it is useless to reject one and admitting the other is good because you can't explain accurately something as complicated as human relations and psychology with only one way of thinking, and it is even more complicated when you admit some combinations, considered by the "wrong", cannot exist because everyone has been included in one of the categories the "right" approach describes.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top