Talk:Statics and dynamics

Equivalency to Myers-Briggs J/P dichotomy

This section contains an interesting, though controversial hypothesis. It needs to be presented as "one of the viewpoints." --Admin 07:28, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Is there a way to mark a section "may be controversial"? I knew this wouldn't be accepted right off the bat when I wrote it. I apologize that the definition for static and dynamic is inverted in this description. I will fix this. [fixed] Other than that I maintain that it is a correct description of what a trained MBTI professional would say on the subject. This is really a matter of internal consistency, not a question of which testing method is more accurate.

I am aware of what others have said regarding noncorrelation, and I wholeheartedly disagree. It's a completely seperate logical matter from that of accuracy. Even if the test itself is not completely accurate (they claim it's only 70%), there are a number of tools by which Myers-Briggs adherents can (and are expected to) use to increase their accuracy. The same essential questions are asked as in Socionics, although they generally use a preference-based rather than structural model so the underlying traits are numbered differently. Luke 15:55, 22 July 2007 (BST)

A few points --

1) This may well be what a trained MBTI professional would say on the subject, that in itself says nothing about its relevance to socionics;

2) It is not at all a question of "internal consistency", that is the case only if there was already a clear-cut case for a correlation between MBTI and socionics. It may be a completely separate logical matter from accuracy - whatever, even so, it still has to be proven, and not on the mere assumption that the two systems correlate.

3) What concerns us here is socionics's internal consistency, to which any correlation to MBTI is totally irrelevant.

4) So, rather than say "this may not be accurate" perhaps we can say" this is based on the controversial assumption of a correlation between MBTI and socionics. Expat 15:54, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Thank you for your input.

1) The practical relavence to the community is unfortunately inherent in the usage of "INTP" style notation. Which probably isn't going to stop any time soon.

We're not too concerned with that. On the contrary, it's probably best to make clear from the beginning that socionics is independent from MBTI Expat 16:59, 22 July 2007 (BST)

2) The trouble is when some Socionists (Lytov, Ganin, etc.) make a claim of non-correlation (which is incredible on the face of it since both are based directly on Jung's definitive work, Psychological Types), and cite this issue as evidence. Claims of non-correlation need to be made within a framework consistent with at least the stated beliefs of those being criticized.

You should take a lookt at our page on Jung's Typology, and that is precisely where all your reasoning collapses -- it is not "incredible" at all, since socionics's functions are based on Jung's, they are not identical to them. The original definitions of socionics functions were those by Augusta, and her definitions are different from those of Jung, albeit still closely related. Also, we do not follow blindly not even her definitions or descriptions. The stated beliefs of Socionists, including Lytov, are precisely as I just mentioned. Functions inspired and derived from Jung's, yes; slavishly identical, no. Expat 16:59, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Jung's work did have some ambiguities, but the concepts derived from it -- that each trait has an introverted and an extroverted form, and that they can only be arranged in these certain ways -- is identical between the two typologies. Over time they should naturally grow together, wherever sufficient empirical data is obtainable. Luke 21:21, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Such an identity is too minor to lead to the conclusion that the two systems should "grow together". Far bigger is the issue that socionics has been developed from intertype relationships, and MBTI has not. The socionics types are a matrix, one type cannot exist independently from the other 15, so to speak, because a type is also defined by its interactions with the other 15. That is not a mere detail, it is the very essence of socionics. It is not the essence of MBTI. If we were to try to "merge" them together, if socionics were to be influenced by MBTI in any way, either (1) the intertype relationships would collapse or (2) we would be staying within socionics, in which case any input from MBTI is of no consequence. Expat 05:22, 23 July 2007 (BST)

I'm only saying that they should grow towards the same end, i.e. that they should both end up being consistent with each other, even if the chosen dichotomies are different or whatever. Intertype relations are given some attention by some MBTI theorists, such as Beebe and Berens[1]. If Socionics has already reached that end, there is no reason to change it to be more like the MBTI. The MBTI should (obviously) be changed to fit Socionics in that event. Luke 15:22, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Intertype relationshios are not given some attention by socionics; they are at the very core of the socionics types. They are what defines the functions and the types, they are its starting point. That is the difference, and why to move it towards MBTI would make it collapse. Expat 15:36, 23 July 2007 (BST)

3) I have no issue with Socionics' own internal consistency. Aushra Augusta and company have done a fine job on it. However many in the MBTI community do, or think they do, thanks in part to this issue. (In addition to their usual skepticism of V.I. inevitably entering the conversation.) I also have no issue with MBTI's internal consistency, as many Socionists do, again thanks to these claims of noncorrelation. I would like to see us be at least capable of working towards a unified theory. For that there has to be a solid framework relating the two.

The problem is that socionists do not really think that there is much to be gained by "unifying" with MBTI. Expat 16:59, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Science is primarily about resolving ambiguities in our understanding of nature. If MBTT is actually of inferior quality to Socionics, perhaps that would make unification the burden of MBTT theorists, not Socionists. The reverse would also be true. If they were about fundamentally different things there would be no reason to unify them -- but in that case I'd be insanely curious as to why such similar-appearing systems exist in parallel in the human psyche. Luke 21:21, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Yes, MBTI theorists should see how to make an intertype relationship theory work, because that was the purpose of socionics from the beginning. That is what makes the two systems are fundamentally different. The answer to your "insane curiosity" is simply that the existence of different personality types seems to be something real, already observed since ancient times at some levels, and in modern times Jung provided a deeper insight. Socionics used intertype relationships to make the types sort of cross-check each other; MBTI didn't. The thing is, once you accurately know a socionics type, you can explain and even predict what issues develop in personal relationships - again, that is the core of socionics. Expat 05:22, 23 July 2007 (BST)

If MBTI is an inferior theory, then there is no "unification" to be sought. And as Expat explained above, the similarities are superficial and only due to their common origin in Jung's typology. I don't know what exactly you mean by internal consistency, but if MBTI is coming into the conversation, then you are obviously using reasoning external to socionics (and in this case, entirely irrelevant as well). Socionics is a theory of interpersonal relationships, MBTI is not. Thehotelambush 23:43, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Perhaps the term "conquest" would be more apropos? They're both essentially claiming to be substantially close to the same thing. Either they can be reconciled logically, or one must completely supplant the other. Luke 06:38, 24 July 2007 (BST)

4) In light of what's been said on the subject by Socionics authority figures (whose work I generally respect in other areas), I will accede that it has a controversial aspect to it. I intend to write this up as a hypothesis (Static-Percieving correlation) a bit more concisely on a seperate page, then we can link to it from this one, if that makes sense to you guys. It can then be rated as to controversiality without cluttering up Statics and dynamics so much.Luke 16:42, 22 July 2007 (BST)

That sounds like a good place to start. --Admin 16:51, 22 July 2007 (BST)

I think that that hypothesis is sheer rubbish, so definitely has to be diluted to "hypothesis". Besides, since when we "accept" any direct correlation to anything in Myers-Briggs here? That's already a reason to greatly distance ourselves from it as being "official". I will write my own text on this. Expat 09:04, 22 July 2007 (BST)

For example, since when is in socionics a "extravert static" "always a rational"? It's the precise opposite. Whoever wrote that has no clue about socionics. Expat 09:25, 22 July 2007 (BST)

We have to either delete it or put a "warning: the accuracy of this section is doubtful" - by the way, how do I find all the templates that have been written already? Expat 09:34, 22 July 2007 (BST)

"Help" section. Try putting it up for practice :) --Admin 10:00, 22 July 2007 (BST)

I would just comment that the much of the discussion here echos comments in past discussions about whether MBTI theory is "worthy" of being compared to Socionics, or whether mappings between the theories are useful. It seems to me that a more fruitful avenue of discussion is to focus on merely what is said about J/P in MBTI in official definitions, and consider if that is applicable to Socionics types or not. After all, it's Socionics that we're trying to understand. So, really the question is: 1) Is a tendency to want to have things scheduled and planned, or to leave one's timing and plans open and spontaneous, related to type? 2) What types would be more likely to want to have things scheduled and planned, and what types would tend to like to leave timing and plans open and spontaneous? --Jonathan 02:45, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Why are you trying to make socionics as simplistic as MBTI? To which purpose? Expat 05:22, 23 July 2007 (BST)

To answer your question, if you start by defining types in that way, you are in MBTI, not Socionics. The true issue in socionics is, why are you planning something or leaving timing open? The motivation is relevant for socionics, not the mere preference. For instance, the Ni PoLR types, left to their own devices, prefer to take things as they come and do whatever they have to do in front of them; however, since in many situations they can't really do that in practice, they compensate by imposing on themselves a tight schedule. When planning a trip, for instance, some Te PoLR types may feel insecure about their ability of finding information about accomodation, trains, whatever, and feel nervous if they don't have everything sorted out before they leave. Others may find that it's more fun not to. Expat 05:45, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Still on this -- Jonathan, your mistake is to look at socionics to explain an outside behavior trait. It's the same as using socionics to explain another "Pop-J" feature, whether you tend to keep your desk tidy or not. That is connected to Si, but both Si PoLR and Si dominant types are inclined to keep their desks tidy or not. In the case of planning etc, it all depends. Are we talking about the daily schedule, or the life in the longer term? In principle rational types feel bad about changing a decision once taken for no reason, if just for their own impulse; for irrationals, to do things on impulse is "reason" enough. And then we have Schwarzenegger's example that you raised, about his decisions on the spur of the moment not being "impulsive" like Britney Spears. The difference is that for Schwarzenegger to take a decision based on events is not being impulsive at all, it's just a rational decision to address the isse at hand ie what's in front of him. Jonathan, you have to understand Socionics in its own terms. If you want to type people in tersm of external behavior regarding planning, be my guest, but then you will never truly understand socionics. Expat 09:04, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Actually, I was merely raising the question, and trying to draw the conversation away from the "which typology is better" issue. I'm perfectly comfortable with an "it depends" kind of answer to the J/P issue, or one which relates tendencies towards MBTI-J and MBTI-P behavior to groupings of types which aren't defined by any of the standard dichtomies. I'm perfectly aware that type concepts may be expressed behaviorally in a number of different ways; in fact, many of my posts are about that. :) There do, however, seem to be some competing (or in some cases, ambiguous-seeming) views about what the general tendency of various types is, in regard to these kind of behaviors being discussed here. That's why I've been raising some of these questions. --Jonathan 14:54, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Equivalence to the J/P switch hypothesis

Luke's hypothesis is fully equivalent to the J/P switch hypothesis. I altered the text to make note of that. The J/P switch controversy is one that comes up not only in the context of discussing MBTI, but also concerns different conceptions of what various types are like, totally irrespective of even considering the MBTI. This issue will come up again and again, as this is one of the most challenging and difficult issues within all of Socionics. It will always be good to recognized that this issue is being discussed (underneath), and thus to put links between such discussions when appropriate. --Jonathan 23:40, 22 July 2007 (BST)

I'm totally baffled by your statement, "this is one of the most challenging and difficult issues within all of Socionics". It is nothing of the sort. There is no challenge and no difficulty within socionics, not of this sort; that is a challenge only to those who insist in mixing up the two systems. You will never solve this challenge to the satisfaction of both socionists and MBTI enthusiasts. Let go. Expat 05:04, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Agree completely. Also, we should be careful about the placement of personal hypotheses (as well as anything related to MBTI, which is not the main focus of this wiki), and not just the clear marking of them as such. I'm moving the second hypothesis regarding judicious/decisive to J/P switch, and replacing this section with a reference to that page. If you think it should be placed at MBTI, go ahead, but it should be in an article explicitly about the MBTI. Thehotelambush 05:19, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Yes. As a general rule, we should make the whole issue of MBTI-Socionics correlations a separate study, or several. We can even create a new category, "Correlations between MBTI and Socionics". What we should not do is have them all over the wiki, like this one here, creating the impression that such a correlation is any kind of major aim or purpose of socionists. In fact, we should even move this bit here to the J/P switch article. Expat 05:28, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Ah, you've done it already!! :-) Expat 05:33, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Actually, Luke was the one who put up the hypothesis section. I just mentioned that it was equivalent to the "J/P switch" and stated in the discussion that these kinds of issues should link to "J/P switch" and that there are challenging issues hidden underneath that aren't even related to the MBTI. You don't have to agree with that statement, but you seem to be rejecting it out of hand (?). I know that the same issue under various guises will keep popping up from time to time, because it always does. :) --Jonathan 15:53, 23 July 2007 (BST)

It is clear that if you even think of the J/P switch as an issue, it is the same issue as the static/dynamic thing because we are talking of ego functions. The two issues are the same. What I do reject out of hand (but not without having thought about it) is that the J/P switch is an issue within socionics. It is not. It is only an issue if you come to socionics from MBTI and are unwilling to drop MBTI concepts and start in socionics from scratch. I see the J/P switch as totally irrelevant for socionics. The issue pops up from time to time because there will always be people referring to MBTI. If you approach socionics in its own terms, it's a non-issue. Expat 18:16, 23 July 2007 (BST)

The J/P switch issue isn't an issue within Socionics, by definition. However, my point was that there are some related issues that appear similar, that are purely within Socionics. One of them has to do with some different conceptions of Ni is (e.g., ranging from imagination and mysticism to predicting the future and focusing ones attention to problems that will likely come up in the very near future). Another is coming to a clearer sense of the expected behaviors associated with the Reinin dichotomies. This aspect of the definition in the article is still somewhat vague (and I don't know how we might substantiate the 8-frames/64-frames per second hypothesis). I could see how someone could make a case for dynamics being more "sequential" in a certain way (which might appear slightly like MBTI-J). What the typical behaviors associated with these things (if they're not as Luke thought) is something that could be fleshed out. Whether you see a connection to MBTI or not, though, isn't really that important. Let's not get worked up over this. :) --Jonathan 19:02, 23 July 2007 (BST)

The early socionists, including Augusta herself and Stratiyevskaya, emphasized a lot (too much imo) the "intuition of time" aspect of Ni. I see Ni as the inclination to wander off into your own internal imaginary world, going deep into it and following it for a while, rather than jump between different ones "on the surface", which is more Ne. That imaginary world is often reflections on the past and on the future, and what connects them; and also a consistent imaginary word such as a poem or a novel. The ILI Gore Vidal has described himself, in his youth, as always wandering off into his own imagination and "automatically" creating a whole novel, which he then "just" had to put into paper. That is also Ni. So all of the definitions you mentioned are aspects of Ni imo. But I grant you, again, that the early definitions emphasized too much the "time" thingy, which makes no sense with the IEI "romantic and dreamer" aspect. On the "frames" thingy, that is impossible to truly substantiate. I can only say that I had observed this difference between myself and others all my life, so that as soon as I read about the Dynamic/Static difference I had no problem relating to it. That is perhaps also my Ni. But I see both Static and Dynamic as "sequential", one in continuous steps, the other in abrubpt leaps, and not associated to J alone in any way. Expat 23:21, 23 July 2007 (BST)

That's a really good way of articulating the concept of Ni...one of the best I've seen. --Jonathan 05:02, 24 July 2007 (BST)

Would you say that those who classify themselves as J in myers-briggs tend to be Dynamic in this sense? I do notice that I tend to be "slow on the uptake" compared to certain others. And usually I classify them as J types, come to think of it. Luke 07:31, 24 July 2007 (BST)

But I agree with your decision to remove Luke's section (entirely except for the link) and place it under "J/P switch." --Jonathan 16:03, 23 July 2007 (BST)

I agree as well. Minimizing potential sources of confusion and excess complexity is generally a good thing in my opinion. Luke 02:53, 24 July 2007 (BST)