към началната страница psihologia.net
Сайт на преподаватели и възпитаници от специалност "Психология" в СУ
 
 Въпроси/ОтговориВъпроси/Отговори   ТърсенеТърсене   ПотребителиПотребители   Потребителски групиПотребителски групи   Регистрирайте сеРегистрирайте се 
 Профилпрофил   Влезте, за да видите съобщенията сиВлезте, за да видите съобщенията си   ВходВход   лични страници на възпитанициЛични страници

4. Types and stereotypes.
Иди на страница 1, 2  Следваща
 
Създайте нова тема   Напишете отговор    psihologia.net Форуми -> Соционика. Запознаване с школата
Предишната тема :: Следващата тема  
Автор Съобщение
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 19 Яну 2005 9:22:59    Заглавие: 4. Types and stereotypes. Отговорете с цитат

Let us consider today basic definitions of socionics – we mean, the 4 basic criteria (dichotomies, dimensions), the 8 basic functions and the 16 types. Is it too much? It is not, because all these concepts are closely related to each other.
We will describe all them in comparison with the definitions of Myers-Briggs typology, because you seem familiar with this typology.
To start, you can read a short but funny article describing the scales in the Myers-Briggs typology:
http://socioniko.narod.ru/en/articles/leaver-personality.html
and then we will consider their difference from the socionic scales.
We will also consider practical, vital examples of all these dichotomies, functions and types to make them easy memorizable.

THE 4 CRITERIA (DIMENSIONS)
Socionics uses the terms “criterion” and “dichotomy” (Greek: ‘splitting into two parts’). MBTT uses the terms “dimension” or “choice” instead. Why “dimension”? Because these criteria remind the system of Descartes coordinates where each axis splits space into 2 equal parts.
In addition, both MBTT and socionics use the term “scale”.
So many terms, are they all necessary? However, it is not a whim of the authors of these typologies; it is just the diversity of human language.
(to be continued soon).
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 19 Яну 2005 20:31:52    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

1. Thinking / feeling (in socionics: logic / ethic).

The definitions of this dichotomy seem to be equal both in socionics and in MBTT. If we even noticed certain differences, they were caused by own perception of their authors, not by any traditions.

The only difference is the name. Let us remind: the term used in the US may lead to confusion (which was noticed by Jung himself), because, for example, the word “feeling” describes not only the emotional sphere (which is really described by this part of the dichotomy), but also human perception.

In determining this criterion without testing, Victor Gulenko and Catherine Filatova pointed at the following basic differences:

1. Impersonal (logical types) or evaluative (ethical types) type of judgments and expressions. Logical types usually have slow reaction towards other people’s emotions and/or slowly awake their own emotions. This, on the one hand, sometimes causes problems in communication or in “self-advertising”, but on the other, it’s an advantage, which allows being "cold-minded", evaluate facts soberly.

Mimics is often an obvious evidence of the person’s being a logical or ethical type. Mimics of ethical types is always rich, even when they are introverted, restrained. Mimics of logical types is rather monotonous, too obvious (joy – grief, satisfaction – dissatisfaction). Often ethical types understand their own influence on people and even “play little dramas”. Logical types rather get angry when they lose control over the situation.

This difference becomes especially noticeable when we watch women actresses. Society usually expects that women should be emotional, somewhat capricious, tender. However, actresses that belong to logical types do not demonstrate lots of emotions, they are rather over-realistic in their roles.

Examples of actresses belonging to logical types: Meryl Streep, Meg Ryan, Helen Hant, Sharon Stone, Glenn Close, Patricia Kaas, Uma Thurman, Demie Moore.

Examples of actresses belonging to ethical types: Barbra Streisand, Elisabeth Taylor, Melanie Griffith, Nastassia Kinsky, Susan Sarandon, Fannie Ardan, Liza Minnelli, Nicole Kidman.

IMPORTANT NOTE: in all cases when we give examples of type representatives, we have verified his/her type by biographical materials. We did not (and will not) determine his/her type by appearance, texts and other indirect sources – we analyzed their life and behavior. We also avoid mentioning people whose types are still argued

2. Laconism (logical types) or adjective-overloaded speech (ethical types). When we do not watch somebody personally, we can at least judge his/her speech. Writers of logical types may write very long sentences and books, but they speak about facts, not something "subjective". They do not concentrate their attention on emotions, they just give facts and thoughts. On the other hand, ethical writers are masters of word, they often use a lot of adjectives, describe passions that rage between people - and this sometimes results in a sad fact: a lot of passion, but very little action.

Good examples of “logical” writers are Stanislaw Lem, Anton Chekhov, Maxim Gorky, Ayn Rand, Jack London, Somerset Maugham, Agatha Christie, Haruki Murakami.

Examples of ethical writers: Thomas and Heinrich Mann, maybe 60-70% of poets, Alexandre Dumas (both father and son), Victor Hugo, Theodore Dreiser, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Leo Tolstoy, Stefan Zweig, Gerald Durrell.

NOTE: again, we (or other socionists) have determined types of these people not by their texts but by biographical data. The texts were analyzed only afterwards.

3. Behavior in arguments: focus on facts (logic) / on relations, people (ethic); explanation of his or her own opinion (logic) / persuasion, induction (ethic) etc.

Representatives of ethical types are usually good talkers, but when they become managers or even politicians, they are afraid of making unpopular decisions, they prefer that somebody else would do unpopular things behind their backs. For example, Hitler was a very soft, joyous and even sometimes compliant in communication; he preferred not to see “unpleasant things” by his own eyes and, unlike many dictators, very rarely used reprisals against people from his surrounding.

Logical types are much more often represented among managers, but they often lack somewhat called “charm”, they seem to be too “dry”. Some people of logical types sometimes succeed in becoming more attractive to others, but their saying are often explicit and straightforward. They do not "play games", they "do their job".

Examples of politicians of ethical types: Mikhail Gorbachev, Georgi Dimitrov, Nicolae Ceausescu, George W. Bush Jr., Jacques Chirac, Leonid Brezhnev, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Examples of politicians of logical types: Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, Charles de Gaulle, Winston Churchill, probably also Czar Simeon II (sorry, we do not know much about him, we just watched his interviews on TV).

One more interesting note. Jung wrote that about 2/3 of “thinking” (i.e. logical) types are represented by men, and about 2/3 of “feeling” (ethical) types by women. Isabel Myers was not so flat in her sayings, but she also noticed such a trend: from the very childhood, “feeling” traits are cultivated in girls, and “thinking” in boys.

This, however, does not mean that men of ethical types are “feminine”, and women of logical types are “masculine”. The reality is more complicated and more interesting! Independently from each other, Victor Talanov and we (Dmitri and Marianna) discovered an interesting tendency in the results of our tests. Men of ethical types had always had higher scores on the logical scale than women or corresponding types. And vice versa: women of logical types had higher scores on the ethical scale than men of the same types.

In other words: logic/ethic has very indirect relation to masculinity/femininity; the last scale reflects rather distribution of these traits among men and women of the same psychological types. In other words, AVERAGE women are more “ethical” than AVERAGE men, and that is all.

Moreover, men of ethical types often look sexually attractive; they instinctively feel what attracts other people in them, and emphasize these traits. Examples of famous men actors of ethical types: John Travolta, Michele Placido, George Clooney, Jeremy Irons, Hugh Grant.
By contrast, men of logical types are not too demonstrative: they simply “do what is useful”. And they do not demonstrate much emotions – they ACT. Examples of famous actors of logical types: Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis, Woody Allen, Robert De Niro, Anthony Hopkins, Tim Robbins.

That’s all about the scale “logic – ethic”, now let us discuss another scale.
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Kalin Yanev



Регистриран на: 31 Мар 2003
Мнения: 1197
Местожителство: София
Потребителски групи: 
[ Администратори ]
[ Випускници - психолози от СУ ]
[ Докторанти ]
[ новини ]
[ семинар "Соционика" ]
[ Студенти випуск 2002 г. ]

МнениеПуснато на: 20 Яну 2005 11:38:32    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

Цитат:
One more interesting note. Jung wrote that about 2/3 of “thinking” (i.e. logical) types are represented by men, and about 2/3 of “feeling” (ethical) types by women. Isabel Myers was not so flat in her sayings, but she also noticed such a trend: from the very childhood, “feeling” traits are cultivated in girls, and “thinking” in boys.

Цитат:
n MBTT, type descriptions are static: they describe something stable, unchanged.
In socionics, type descriptions may seem also static. However, socionics uses the so-called Model A, which describes types in dynamics. It distributes type traits into 1) more or less stable; 2) situation-dependent;


OK - sorry to interrupt u again, I have some basic questions about the nature of "the type". U have mentioned much about this so far but I think there is need of generalization:
1. Is the type inborn? Can it be altered by some cultural influence?
and therefore:
2. Is it stable or dynamic?
3. What are the determinants of the type? Is it the genes? and if so: Should we expect the types of (i dont know the word - in bulgarian it's еднояйчен, еднояйчни) twins grown splited to be identical? Is there some correlation found between parent's and child's types?
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Изпрати мейла Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 20 Яну 2005 13:30:06    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

2. Sensation / intuition.
The definition of this criterion in socionics has some difference from that used by Myers and Briggs, but these differences do not become obvious at once.

Jung described intuition as an “ever-unconscious function of psyche”. Let us imagine the process of thinking. One part of our consciousness focuses on what is going on around, and another part “sleeps”, i.e. combines acquired images with each other and builds associations. Sometimes these associations are fantastic (.e.g. moon may be associated with cheese for its shape and color), but sometimes they allow forecasting events. Imagination and attention are processes that coexist but sometimes “overlap”, interfere with each other, impede each other.

Sensory people live “here and now”, they do not much trust their imagination and prefer to rely on what they can get, “grab” now. They are sensitive to such small nuances as rumors, changes of somebody’s status, more or less prestigious outfit, etc.

Intuitive people are often considered inattentive and/or impractical; they quickly get bored with “details, details!” If asked to express their opinions, intuitive types rather present their “vision” than a detailed description.

Up to this moment, the definition of sensation/intuition was the same in socionics and MBTT. Where do disagreements come from?

Socionics describes one more important characteristic trait of the sensing function: the control of one’s own physical space. Such a trait has nothing in common with imagination – on the contrary, it is opposite to imagination, it deals with perceiving of what is going on here and now, i.e. with sensation. It is probably the most ancient of human instincts, and maybe Americans avoid describing this characteristic trait of sensing types for the reasons of “political correctness” :)

For example, the literary hero Sherlock Holmes told a lot about his “intuition”, and for this reason our American colleagues, adherents of the Myers & Briggs typology, consider him to be “intuitive”. However, let us recall that Sherlock Holmes’ knowledge was detailed but very narrowly specialized (Conan Doyle wrote that even in chemistry Holmes omitted many important discoveries only because they did not directly concern issues of crime detection). He was perfect in noticing smallest details, in various kinds of manual arts, up to boxing and Japanese combat art, but his imagination left much to be desired, Dr. Watson had always to offer him a lot of useless versions just in order to “wake up” his friend’s imagination. All these traits are characteristic for sensory, not intuitive types. (In socionics, the type logical-sensory extrovert (rational) is also known under the nickname Sherlock Holmes – we will tell later about “game nicknames” of the socionic types).

Another reason for disagreement: adherents of Myers-Briggs and Keirsey typologies sometimes (not always) determine many famous politicians as intuitive types. They say, “those people must have had strong strategic thinking in order to become so successful!”. The reality, however, is simpler than beautiful theories. Intuitive types, even in spite of their brilliant minds, can lose competition because of their inattentiveness, because of getting quickly bored of monotonous work, they do not like permanent watching the competitor’s activities. For example, Leon Trotsky was a brilliant intellectual, master of forecasting, but he lost competition to Stalin, who was a bad forecaster, who considered life as a game where nothing was predictable – but Stalin was a very persistent, attentive, hard-working person. For Stalin, nothing was “boring” if it could contribute to success, and he never avoided routine chores.

Does it mean that sensing types win over intuitive types? Let us consider Mikhail Gorbachev. Although David Keirsey (www.keirsey.com) believes he was intuitive, it is a greatest mistake. Gorbachev became a reformer in spite of his own will; he never planned such large-scaled reforms. He was a master of diplomacy and intrigues, was really brilliant in balancing between opposite opinions, and strived for solutions that could satisfy everybody. There was only one problem: he lacked imagination. Each new event, especially unpleasant, happened “suddenly” and “unexpectedly” to him. In fact he HAD TO make reforms, because he had no other way to stay at power. His views were conservative enough, and no wonder that he surrounded himself by other conservators, which just proved to be harder than him and finally attempted to overthrow him. The situation in 1991 was paradoxical; this year was probably the peak of Gorbachev’s popularity, but it was when he completely lost his power. An intuitive type, Boris Yeltsin, got the power, and although he was criticized for a lot of chaotic, inconsistent actions, he anyway always felt the “needs of time”. Actually, Russia is ruled by another intuitive, Vladimir Putin. He is probably the smartest leader of Russia for the last 100 years (and this is why his popularity is extremely high), but on the other hand, Putin lacks strong will and decisiveness (because he is not only intuitive, but also introverted), and sometimes his reforms remain uncompleted.

Examples of intuitive politicians: Solomon Passi, Tony Blair, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatera, Charles de Gaulle, Nicolae Ceausescu, John Kennedy, Condoleezza Rice, Osama Bin Laden, Victor Yushchenko.

Examples of sensory politicians: Gerhard Schroeder, Sylvio Berlusconi, Jacques Chirac, Leonid Brezhnev, Winston Churchill, Saddam Hussein, Donald Rumsfeld.

So who are more successful – sensory or intuitive types? Neither, if they stand alone. The S/N criterion is probably the one where mutual support of S and N is especially important. One can somewhat “train up” his/her weak sensing or intuitive function, but will anyway feel unsure in activities related to it. Cooperation between intuitive and sensing people is successful, when "practical approach" and "imagination" work together. Alas, much more often sensory and intuitive types criticize each other: sensors criticize intuitives for being “impractical” and “absent-minded”, and intuitives criticize sensors for being “shortsighted”, greedy”, “flat-minded”. Sensors and intuitives need some time to “accustom” to each other, only then they can begin work together successfully (or understand that their views are too different, and they had better work in a different team).

After this long introduction, let us tell how to distinguish intuitives from sensors in real life?

(to be continued)

P.S. Kalin, the reply to your question is in the topic "Speaking with Filatova", in Russian.
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru


Последната промяна е направена от Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы на 22 Яну 2005 19:42:58; мнението е било променяно общо 1 път. (1 процента)
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 22 Яну 2005 19:41:29    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

So: how to distinguish intuitives from sensors?

First: by the aptitude towards abstract or concrete (applied) thinking: the first is more characteristic to intuitives, the second – to sensors. It is easy to notice even at school years: some of pupils are successful in understanding abstract terms, but fail in applied subjects, others – vice versa.

Second: by contents of their speech. Sensors usually memorize a lot of details and use them in their speech, while intuitives used to present their “general vision”.

Third: by their eyes. The look of intuitives is somewhat distracted, as if this person looks not directly at you (or any other object), but rather above you or even through you! :) Sensors usually stare at objects directly, even when their eyes seem inattentive.

Fourth: generally by their appearance. Sensors are much more attentive to their appearance from their very childhood than intuitives. For sensors, their outfit means a lot: comfort of feelings, status, fashion etc. Even movements of sensory types seem to be better coordinated, more decisive than those of intuitives (however, the last much depends on people’s interest to sport; some intuitives may have train their body very well, but generally, sensors look better trained, because there are more attentive to the needs of their body).

And finally - some more examples of intuitive and sensory personalities.

Sensory actors: Robert De Niro, Dannie De Vito, Al Pacino, Bruce Willis, Alain Delon, Gerard Depardieu, George Clooney, Malcolm McDowell, Anthony Hopkins, Tom Cruise.

Intuitive actors: Dustin Hoffmann, Tim Robbins, Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, Hugh Grant, Jeremy Irons, Franka Potente.

Sensory actresses: Michelle Pfeiffer, Elisabeth Taylor, Glenn Close, Sharon Stone, Madonna, Catherine Deneuve, Cameron Diaz, Meryl Streep, Melanie Griffith.

Intuitive actresses: Penelope Cruz, Uma Thurman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, Nastassia Kinsky, Fannie Ardan, Meg Ryan, Julianne Moore.

Sensory writers : Leo Tolstoy, Andre Maurois, both Dumas, Stefan Zweig, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, Guy de Maupassant, Somerset Maugham, George Amado.

Intuitive writers : Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Jorge Luis Borges, Stanislaw Lem, Brothers Strugatsky, Robert Sheckley, Jack London (especially characteristic is his Martin Eden!), Ernst Th.A.Hoffmann, Thomas and Heinrich Mann, Franz Kafka, Mark Twain, Anton Chekhov.

And finally, let us once more tell about our Multifactor test. We told already that most of its questions were "responsible" for combinations of Jung’s criteria, e.g., "sensation + logic", or "intuition + introversion + rationality", etc. However, some of its questions were responsible for "pure criteria". Let us list the questions “responsible” for the already considered criteria, i.e., sensation/intuition and logic/ethic.

Please just remember that using these questions ONLY does not always a well reliable result – sometimes people tend to “play roles”.


Logic: positive answers
1. I usually estimate my own and other's actions from the viewpoint of their logicality and expediency.
3. When I make important decisions, arguments of reason mean more for me than the "voice of my heart".
198. I know quite a bit about technical aspects, and can repair household appliances etc. if needed.
235. In evaluation of human relations I pay attention to the obvious facts and often neglect small nuances.
251. I can logically and consequently explain complicated problems, but sometimes people reproach me of being "somewhat dry".

Ethic: positive answers
4. My remarkable feature is the capability to sympathize to others, to help them to calm down and release emotional stress.
14. I usually notice right away that my friend (partner etc.) is tired or does not feel good, and I am there to help.
28. When somebody is in trouble, I immediately feel emotional response to this unlucky event in my soul, even when I do not know him/her personally.
157. I can brightly imagine, “hear by my inner ear" live voices of my relatives and friends with their characteristic timbre, tone, intonations.
172. I like to read books whose authors directly express their evaluation of the event, their moral; I also like movies with emphasized people's moral traits.
252. I sense the reality not as much by reasoning but by compassion and emotional evaluation.
265. I am a very emotional person; even passing feelings capture me totally.
266. During communication I absolutely need the feeling of emotional contact and emotional feedback
282. I am very sensitive towards emotional disharmony, unpleasant intonations, and insincerely expressed feelings.
289. My friends or acquaintances often come to me to tell about their life collisions. Sometimes it is too boring, but I do not like to hurt them by my refuse to listen.

Intuition: positive answers
53. When I lack facts, I often and successfully use my imagination.
85. Often, without any specific goal, just for fun, my imagination travels through time and space.
96. I can work without a warranty of a good pay if I feel enthusiastic about a new business.
109. Chasing new possibilities and discoveries, I am willing to live for a while without a comfort.
111. My treasures are my "inner look", fantasy, imagination, which lead me into fictitious worlds, not limited by any temporal or spatial borders.
213. Daydreamers are close and understandable to me.

Sensation: positive answers
40. The main drive in my life is maximizing comfort and pleasures and avoiding discomforts.
86. The most important thing for me is a feeling of the current moment, in other words, making myself feel good here and now, instead of some day later elsewhere.
112. I am a person liking pleasures and simple worldly joys, they are important to me.
164. My new acquaintance's appearance means very much for me – it tells a lot about qualities of this person.
165. The person's potential and capabilities do not mean much to me – I judge people by results they already can demonstrate.
184. I like to eat slowly and enjoying the taste of the food in the process and really hate when somebody hurries me up or spoils my pleasure by his champ.


(to be continued)
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 22 Яну 2005 21:12:14    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

3. Extroversion (extraversion) / introversion.

In our colloquial language “extrovert” means an open, sociable, communicable person, while “introvert” means a reserved, reticent, shy one. Such definition was given to these words not by Jung, but by Hans Jurgen Eysenck, who borrowed these words from Jung’s works. According to Myers & Briggs, these words have just the same meaning. Keirsey somewhat changed his views on them: initially, in his test extroversion was associated with communicability and activity, but in its last version – only with communicability.

However, socionics uses somewhat different definitions of these words.
We just need to repeat what we have already said: if we accept the definition according to Myers and Keirsey, such definition will strongly correlate with two other criteria, sensation/intuition and feeling/thinking. The extrovert according to Myers and Keirsey will be a little bit more sensory than intuitive, and a little bit more feeling than thinking. And the introvert according to Myers and Keirsey will be, on the contrary, more intuitive than sensory, and more thinking than feeling.

In socionics, extroversion/introversion is associated with INITIATIVE. Extroverts tend to extend their activity, to be anxious whether they did all the could, or can do something more; introverts, on the contrary, rather want to avoid redundancy.

As you can see, this is INDIRECTLY related to communicability. For example, an intuitive-logical extrovert can feel embarrassed in human relations, but he will show a lot of initiatives in intellectual activities. On the contrary, a sensory-ethical introvert is often smiling, gladly talks to pleasant people (especially of the opposite sex), and may be misperceived for an extrovert; but in fact, he does not like to extend the circle of his activities, and especially does not like when his life becomes unstable (while extroverts perceive instability as a challenge).

Victor Gulenko, a socionist from Kiev, defined extroverts as “energy –spending”, and introverts as “energy-saving” people. Extroverts strive for new achievements, while introverts strive for stabilization. Under the rule of extroverts, economy usually becomes dynamically developing but unstable; under the rule of extroverts, it stabilizes… but later, if such stabilization lasts for too long, it gradually stagnates.

Here are the questions from our test that correlate with extroversion-introversion.

Extroversion: positive answers
25. Switching between different tasks and activities is never a problem for me, furthermore I enjoy it and it helps me to stay active and alert during a day.
45. I often take an extra risk because of my curiosity.
61. During vacations, I prefer to discover new places rather then to visit familiar ones.
117. I would like to try myself in extremal sports, like parachute jumping, mountain climbing, alpine skiing etc.
181. I would not restrict myself in my sayings and actions for the only reason that they can amaze conservative people and cause their irritation.
182. I easily accustom myself to a new party, and soon feel free and active.
237. I think more often about the possibilities ahead than about previous fortunes and misfortunes.
246. I do not like long preliminary preparations, and try to do everything at maximum speed.

Introversion
12. At my work, I try to avoid excessive responsibilities, work loads and initiatives even when I know that all this extras would be good for my career growth.
38. I can really relax only in the circle of my closest friends.
49. I really hesitate speaking in public.
144. I can only concentrate well on one business at a time.
171. I belong to the group of people which are permanent in their habits: I keep fidelity to the same unchanging group of friends, work, place of residence, hobbies.
231. I really like the principle: hurry up slowly.
270. I do not like to stand out by my appearance, e.g. to be dressed in too bright colors.


Extroverted politicians: George W. Bush Jr., Sylvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Shroeder, Boris Yeltsin, Bill Clinton, Junichiro Koizumi, Vladimir Lenin, Georgi Dimitrov, Leon Trotsky, Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro Ruz.

Introverted politicians: Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin, Czar Simeon, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Nikita Khrushchev (during the last years of his life he was very sociable, and sometimes he is misperceived for an extrovert, but in fact, reforms under him were only superficial, and economy began to stagnate, and for many years he was known as a reticent and sly person), Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon.

Extroverted actors and actresses: Anthony Hopkins, Brad Pitt, Nicole Kidman, Uma Thurman, Dustin Hoffmann, Elisabeth Taylor, Quentin Tarantino, Whoopy Goldberg, Liza Minnelly, Marlon Brando, Tom Hanks, Franka Potente, Pierre Richard, Fannie Ardan.

Introverted actors and actresses: Robert de Niro, Tom Cruise, Suzan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Michelle Pfeiffer, John Travolta, Glenn Close, Meryl Streep, Gwyneth Paltrow, Gerard Depardieu, Catherine Deneuve, Alain Delon, Michele Placido, Isabelle Huppert.

(to be continued)
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 22 Яну 2005 23:01:58    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

4. Judgment/perception (in socionics: rationality / irrationality; C.G. Jung used the BOTH terms as synonyms, while Myers and Keirsey distinguish them).
The socionic criterion of rationality/irrationality, according to Jung, describes rigidity or lability of the central neural system. Rational types are rigid, judgment-focused: they strive for being consistent, systematic in their deeds, keep plans even when situation changes. By contrast, irrational people are more flexible, perception-focused: they adapt to the changing situation, and their emotional outbursts do not last too long, even when they are strong.
This descriptions was first given by Jung, accepted by Isabel Myers… and misinterpreted by her! She understood judgment as strong will, perception as weakness of character. Since such her interpretation contradicted to the original Jung’s descriptions of types, she later invented a very strange model, where judgment/perception was described as something else than rationality/irrationality. Still, her model embarrasses people when they read original Jung’s works! And such interpretation resulted in some bugs in her test, which we have already described above.
But let us return to socionics. Augusta completely accepted the original Jung’s description of this criterion. However, initially she made another mistake. She wrongly identified this criterion with E.Kretschmer’s schizothymes / cyclothymiacs. Later this hypothesis was disproved by other socionists. But still, some adepts of socionics, who read only early Augusta’s work, wrongly believe that rationals are “gaunt and asthenic, with strict motions”, while irrationals are “cat-gaited, with roundish motions”.

Here are the questions from our test that correlate with extroversion-introversion.

Lability (irrationality): positive answers
13. When I practice my hobby, time ceases to exist for me. As a result, I can even forget about some important plans or promises made to other people.
64. I live in harmony with my feelings and do not like to force myself to do things which I do not like or limit myself with plans and schedules.
166. I believe that successful solutions are determined rather by freedom and spontaneity than by planning and organized actions.
253. When I fulfill any of my ideas, a different tempting idea can easily distract me, and then I can abandon my undertaking halfway.
283. Even possessing good thinking, I often lack the skill and desire to plan my work.

Rigidity (rationality): positive answers
31. I can easily plan my day so I can make all the needed contacts and visits in time.
42. I do not like to leave a work uncompleted.
91. First my work, then my rest, but never vice versa!
210. I prefer to schedule my time in advance, and for this reason, I have to now about other's people plans.
219. I am consequent in my actions.
254. I succeed in keeping my affairs in order, and I am allergic to any chaos or unsystematic actions.
261. I am a person of obligations (before my family, friends, and work).
275. When my work is more or less complicated, I first plan it, and then methodically follow my plan.
291. I never give worthless promises and do not respect people who make them too easily.

This time, we are not going to give you examples of rational and irrational politicians and actors, because this criterion is not easily recognizable from a distance. It would be the same as e.g. diagnosing whether a person is AIDS-infected by the color of his/her face.

However, the functional analysis, which we have just approached, allows diagnosing this criterion very precisely. Let us speak about the 8 functions.
(to be continued tomorrow).
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 23 Яну 2005 10:46:30    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

CORRELATION BETWEEN THE CRITERIA, or Why American Tests Cannot Be Used to Test Socionic Types.

As a post scriptum to this topic, we would like to tell some words about correlation between the 4 Jung’s criteria. Are they independent from each other?

At least, they were supposed to be. However, such approach a little bit contradicts to what we actually know about the mechanisms of brain and their functioning.

Although we can describe specific brain zones responsible for certain processes, such as Wernicke zone, Broca zone, etc., these zones also interact with each other and influence each other, especially when they are bordering. For example, we know the following phenomenon: when people think about something abstract, they begin, unconsciously, to move their fingers in the air, as if trying to grasp at something. This is just because the zone of motive activity of fingers closely borders the zone of abstract imagination, so that when one of these zones activates, another also gets somewhat excited.

And the same regularity is valid in regard to the 4 Jung’s criteria. It was first mentioned and studied by Victor Talanov (see for example: Таланов В.Л., Малкина-Пых И.Г. Справочник практического психолога. – СПб.: Сова, М.: ЭКСМО, 2002. – 928 с.). Then, as we have already mentioned, Talanov created a series of multifactor tests, in whose results he really found certain correlation between the 4 criteria. In our own test, we obtained almost the same results as Talanov did, so let us describe our results.

What does “correlation” mean? Let us take two groups, ST (sensory + logical) and NT (intuitive = logical) types. When we compared answers of these two groups to the questions of our test, we have noticed that the second tended to answer positively to T-relevant questions more often than the first. Such correlations were watched for all the 4 criteria. Important note: they were small enough, so that we can consider the 4 Jung’s criteria as approximately independent. However, if we ignore such correlations, they sometimes can distort the test results, not always, but sometimes.

In the American tests (Myers & Briggs Type Indicator, Keirsey temperament Sorter etc.) all the questions have equal scores. No mathematical corrections are used in order to reckon with such correlations. In fact, our American colleagues have never even asked themselves, whether such correlations really exist. In our test (as well as in Talanov’s tests), complicated mathematical formulas are used in order to eliminate such correlation-relevant deviations. And – one more important note – the questions we have listed above are also not equally scored!. In fact, the score of a particular question depends even on the type of the person that answers the test questions.

On the below diagram we represent the correlations that we have found in our test (the first publication of the figure: Лытова М.Ф., Лытов Д.А. Многофакторный самосогласованный соционический тест (МТ): предварительные итоги. Ч.2 // «Соционика, ментология и психология личности», 2004, № 5).

We think that the top part of our picture correlates with the RIGHT brain hemisphere, and the bottom part – with the LEFT brain hemisphere. However, this hypothesis needs to be researched further.



OK, we are closing this topic and start the next one. We have just considered how to evaluate types, but this is not enough: we have not understood yet how they "work", how they "function", move, communicate etc. This is what we will consider in our next topic.
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Kalin Yanev



Регистриран на: 31 Мар 2003
Мнения: 1197
Местожителство: София
Потребителски групи: 
[ Администратори ]
[ Випускници - психолози от СУ ]
[ Докторанти ]
[ новини ]
[ семинар "Соционика" ]
[ Студенти випуск 2002 г. ]

МнениеПуснато на: 23 Яну 2005 20:59:02    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

Have u measured the validity of MT by searching for correlations with Eysenck Personality Test or with other personality tests (16pf, MMPI, etc....)? For I think ur extraversion/introversion items imply very significant correlation with the identically called dimension in EPQ though different as defined construct. (Though Gulenko's definition seems very similar to Eysenck's, doesn't it?)
And for me is very interesting whether some socionics author has made comparison between socionic types and Leongard's.
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Изпрати мейла Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 23 Яну 2005 22:38:04    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

The correct spelling of his surname is Leonhard (we learned it two months ago :))) - both Russian and Bulgarian do not distinguish European H and G :))

OK, to your question.

1. Yes, such comparison was made by Augusta herself, and by Victor Talanov. If we find links to their articles, we will post them to this topic.

2. Important note: Leonhard's definition of extroversion/introversion VERY MUCH contradicts to that given by Eysenck, as well as to the definitions by Myers, Augusta etc.
Leonhard defined introverts as resolute, independent-thinking people, while extroverts, according to him, were passive conformists :))
Leonhard's definition comes from Jung's VERY EARLY works, when Jung himself was still unable to understand the nature of this criterion.

3. The problem of correlation with other tests and typologies has not been widely studied. As far as I know, Talanov performed comparison with the Holland's Test of Professional choice, and Yelyashevich - with the MMPI inventory. Talanov also gave a comparative table of various typologies, including socionics, in his above mentioned book (Справочник практического психолога, 2003). However, not all of these typologies rely upon tests - some of them use different methods of determining their types.

Some other comparative studies will be described in the topic # 9, Experiments in socionics.
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Покажи мнения от преди:   
Създайте нова тема   Напишете отговор    psihologia.net Форуми -> Соционика. Запознаване с школата Часовете са според зоната GMT + 2 Часа
Иди на страница 1, 2  Следваща
Страница 1 от 2

 
Идете на:  
Не Можете да пускате нови теми
Можете да отговаряте на темите
Не Можете да променяте съобщенията си
Не Можете да изтривате съобщенията си
Не Можете да гласувате в анкети


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2003 phpBB Group
Форумът е адаптиран от: Калин Янев и Иван Янкулов