create your personality typing system
- Thread starter Gaze
- Start date
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
of course an INTJ would suggest one personality profile a human! such is the conflict I have with my INTJ lover and INTJ student, forever dismissing the personality models I use. anyways.
I don't see how anyone would need a personality model outside of the one that Jung is credited for, despite its persistence and emergency throughout history in various times and places. though flawed and incomplete I believe that the jungian concepts of T-F N-S E-I J-P balances speak to a fundamentality of the universe that parallels the four forces of the universe in their primacy of what produces the experience of consciousness.
I must admit I am working on a model of perception based on the frameworks of personality that my studying of jungian ideas has allowed for. I'd love to share it but it's very hard to convey something so personal and tied to my perceptions, though I know it isn't doomed to be uselessly myopic or egocentric should I find the right way to convey it.
on the topic of alternative personality types, I don't understand eannegram and I despise the Big Five personality test. in my experience it's a cowardly degeneration of the MBTI.
I don't see how anyone would need a personality model outside of the one that Jung is credited for, despite its persistence and emergency throughout history in various times and places. though flawed and incomplete I believe that the jungian concepts of T-F N-S E-I J-P balances speak to a fundamentality of the universe that parallels the four forces of the universe in their primacy of what produces the experience of consciousness.
I must admit I am working on a model of perception based on the frameworks of personality that my studying of jungian ideas has allowed for. I'd love to share it but it's very hard to convey something so personal and tied to my perceptions, though I know it isn't doomed to be uselessly myopic or egocentric should I find the right way to convey it.
on the topic of alternative personality types, I don't understand eannegram and I despise the Big Five personality test. in my experience it's a cowardly degeneration of the MBTI.
Not sure how, or even if, it could be done, but I'd like to see one of 3 things. Either:
1) make MBTI and Socionics more compatible
or
2) develop MBTI to include more about the dynamics between the types
or
3) develop Socionics to make it as simple or "user friendly" as MBTI
Maybe this is impossible. Or maybe it's been done, but I just havent come across it yet.
1) make MBTI and Socionics more compatible
or
2) develop MBTI to include more about the dynamics between the types
or
3) develop Socionics to make it as simple or "user friendly" as MBTI
Maybe this is impossible. Or maybe it's been done, but I just havent come across it yet.
why aren't socionics and MBTI compatible? I never got that. though it might be because my brain automatically hybridized the two systems as I learned about them, leaving me with some as-of-yet-unarticulated hybrid in my brain.
I think they are both on the cusp of becoming both accessible and scientifically testable. its awesome. I want to be part of the momentum.
I think they are both on the cusp of becoming both accessible and scientifically testable. its awesome. I want to be part of the momentum.
I don't know the empirical truth of it, but I see it as two different facets of people;
MBTI categorizes people based on personal identity; how they react on their stimuli....in RPG terms, people's stats
while Socionics categorizes people based on personal interaction; it sees how they act and interact with each other.
(Enneagram, otoh, categorizes people based on personal intentions and reasons; their desires and needs)
Ah thanks for the points! But isn't personal interaction simply a form of reacting to stimuli? In other words, why would there be a distinction between the processes by which an individual reactions to human stimuli and how they react to non-human stimuli? It's for this reason I assume that MBTI, socionic, Kiersey and even The Big Five personality profiles are basically the same thing, because they essentially say the same thing except contextualized slightly differently.
Since I wrote my post in this forum I remembered two clear distinctions between MBTI and socionics, particularly how
a) socionics characterizes Sensing functions as... for the lack of a better word, possessive, in ways that MBTI doesn't; and
b) the judging and perceiving functions are outlined differently to the extent that Ps and Js are switched for introverts with socionics, making INTJs into INTps in socionic terms
but in terms of (a), I've satisfied my Ni self by hypothesizing that the sensing distinction is due to Jung and the women who designed the MBTI being intuitives and therefore second-hand interpreters of sensing types, while the woman who spearheaded socionics was a sensing type, and therefore had more legitimacy in writing about the particularities of the sensing personality, aligning the Sensing tendency towards tradition and norms with a tendency towards vying for socioeconomic power/stability.
in terms of (b), the judging and perceiving concepts of personality models seem to be secondary consequences of the more central feeling-thinking and sensing-intuition functions and their introverted-extroverted orientations, and therefore the particulars of how perceiving-judging are characterized is secondary to the similarities of the more central aspects of the personality models.
To be honest, I'm confused that there aren't more people decrying what appear to me to be superficial distinctions between the personality models.
Since I wrote my post in this forum I remembered two clear distinctions between MBTI and socionics, particularly how
a) socionics characterizes Sensing functions as... for the lack of a better word, possessive, in ways that MBTI doesn't; and
b) the judging and perceiving functions are outlined differently to the extent that Ps and Js are switched for introverts with socionics, making INTJs into INTps in socionic terms
but in terms of (a), I've satisfied my Ni self by hypothesizing that the sensing distinction is due to Jung and the women who designed the MBTI being intuitives and therefore second-hand interpreters of sensing types, while the woman who spearheaded socionics was a sensing type, and therefore had more legitimacy in writing about the particularities of the sensing personality, aligning the Sensing tendency towards tradition and norms with a tendency towards vying for socioeconomic power/stability.
in terms of (b), the judging and perceiving concepts of personality models seem to be secondary consequences of the more central feeling-thinking and sensing-intuition functions and their introverted-extroverted orientations, and therefore the particulars of how perceiving-judging are characterized is secondary to the similarities of the more central aspects of the personality models.
To be honest, I'm confused that there aren't more people decrying what appear to me to be superficial distinctions between the personality models.
In my system, I wouldn't posit thinking vs. feeling as if they're mutually exclusive or contradictory concepts. It's a false dichotomy.
I would perhaps have the following categories which focus more mental focus and processes:
Intrapersonal Awareness vs. Interpersonal Awareness
- Social Aware
- Self Aware
- Local Aware
- Global Aware
Needs work but I like the first one.
I would perhaps have the following categories which focus more mental focus and processes:
- Intrapersonal-Creative analytical (Internal Directive) - ICAD
- Social-Creative analytical (External Directive) - SCAD
- Intrapersonal-Logical analytical (Internal Directive) - ILAD
- Social-Logical analytical (External Directive) - SLAD
- Intrapersonal-Systematic analytical (Inner Directive) - ISAD
- Social-Systematic analytical (External Directive) - SSAD
Intrapersonal Awareness vs. Interpersonal Awareness
- Social Aware
- Self Aware
- Local Aware
- Global Aware
Needs work but I like the first one.
That sounds great
Different perspective and standpoint.
For instance, the way I see it:
MBTI would (generally) focus on being the best 'you'.
while Enneagram focuses more on fulfilling your desire, filling your subconscious need and 'evolving', somewhat.
On that level, socionics (do CMIIW here) seems to focus on people's interactions; how to make a good relationship, etc.
Sometimes they are overlapping, intertwining; but sometimes they separate and lead to different directions.
I cannot say about Keirsey and The Big Five because IMO they are more specialized; they don't paint a general picture of someone; they are making a specialized analysis on certain traits of them.
Socionics is ridiculous and ought to be discarded. For a resource on how types interact, check out the book "Just Your Type" which has every type in relation to every other type.
I'd almost like to see something like a dichotomous key for personality types.
Using Jung's concepts as an example:
Extraverts | Introverts
Exxx | Ixxx
Rational Dom's | Irrational Dom's
ExxJ or IxxP | ExxP or IxxJ
Thinkers | Feelers OR Sensors | Intuitives
etc etc
What further dichotomous divisions can one make?
Sidebar: It's almost like playing Guess Who, but with personality types.
Using Jung's concepts as an example:
Extraverts | Introverts
Exxx | Ixxx
Rational Dom's | Irrational Dom's
ExxJ or IxxP | ExxP or IxxJ
Thinkers | Feelers OR Sensors | Intuitives
etc etc
What further dichotomous divisions can one make?
Sidebar: It's almost like playing Guess Who, but with personality types.