Talk:Logical Sensory Introvert

Myers-Briggs ISTJ vs. ISTP
I don't know much about Socionics, but my understanding is that the Socionics ISTj equates to the Myers-Briggs ISTP. For Introverts, the last letter is reversed because in Socionics, the last letter refers to the dominant function whereas in Myers-Briggs, the last letter refers to the primary Extraverted function (which in Introverts is the auxiliary). Is this accurate? In LSI, Thinking is dominant and Sensing is auxiliary, correct? That's equivalent to Myers-Briggs ISTP, not ISTJ. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the LSI thinking is "dominant" and sensing is "auxiliary" (these are actually not canonical socionics terms, but I understand what you mean). However, in the ISTP, the tertiary and inferior functions are, respectively, Si and Fe, which correspond with the tertiary and inferior functions of the SLI. So, because these two typologies interpret the functional ordering of the psyche differently, the ISTP is actually a sort of hybrid between the LSI and SLI and likewise the LSI can be viewed as a composite of the ISTP and ISTJ.


 * The implausibility of establishing clear-cut correspondences between these two systems is further compounded by the fact that, despite their common Jungian origin, there are fundamental disagreements as to the semantic content of the functions. Myers-Briggs is more faithful to the original Jungian definitions of the functions, while the founder of socionics, Aushra Augusta, made considerable revisions to these definitions that were that were further refined by her followers in years to come. The idea that LSIs and ISTPs both use Ti as a dominant function becomes a moot point when there are divergent views on what "Ti" actually means.


 * Most socionists would categorically reject this proposed correspondence; however, there will never be an official statement issued on this matter as there is no single authoritative body governing socionics dogma, but rather there are various "schools," each with a slightly different interpretation of socionics phenomena.


 * Nevertheless, I managed quite easily to locate relevant sources that address this matter:


 * Here are Sergei Ganin's perorations on the issue: http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm
 * Interestingly, although Ganin is sometimes criticized for aligning himself too closely with MB typology, his commentary is decidedly the most pertinent.


 * http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html
 * The section entitled "Comparative Experiments and Their Results, or Measuring the Difference between the Socionic and Keirsey Types" briefly discusses correlations between Myers-Briggs and socionics types established through comparative analysis of type descriptions, then moves on to detail empirical findings on correlations between socionics type and Keirsey types.


 * Here is the wikisocion treatment of the subject matter: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=J/P_switch


 * So, is it the opinion of Myers-Briggs professionals that the types correspond thusly, or is it this merely speculation that has been generated by a community of enthusiasts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.232.58 (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I frankly don't think that "MBTI enthusiasts," as you call them, care one way or another about Socionics. I just want the Wikipedia articles to be accurate. I used as my source the following Socionics webpage, which shows the "dominant" and "auxiliary" functions for each of the Socionics types. The link shows LSI as TiSe, which corresponds to MBTI ISTP, not ISTJ.
 * http://www.socionics.com/advan/whoiswho.html
 * If the tertiary and inferior functions don't correspond to the MBTI types in the same way, however, then the MBTI types and Socionics types aren't equivalent. Therefore, I removed the internal links equating the types. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was perhaps the best idea. I feel I should inform you though, that the intent of including those links was almost certainly not to equate the types, but rather to help wikipedia users differentiate between Myers-Briggs and socionics types, as the usage of nomenclature nearly identical (or, well, precisely identical in parts of Eastern Europe, the hub of socionics activity and research incidentally) to that which Myers-Briggs uses in order to indicate the sociotypes is in fact as widespread a practice as it is to render the types using the three-letter type codes. Aside from the resultant obfuscation of trying to succinctly encapsulate this idea into a single sentence, the inclusion of those links would have been a more judicious maneuver in the first place if it were the case that someone searching for the MB ISTP, for instance, could have inadvertently stumbled upon the socionics ISTp page -- the reality of the situation is that someone searching for the socionics ISTp will unwittingly and perhaps confusingly find themselves on the ISTP page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.232.58 (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's not what the links between the articles actually said. For example, the link in this article referred to the ISTJ as the MBTI facsimile of LSI, which it clearly is not. I see no reason to disambiguate from LSI to ISTJ; if a disambiguation is needed from ISTJ to LSI, then there should be a note on the ISTJ page that says something like, "This article is about the Myers-Briggs ISTJ type. For the Socionics ISTj type, see Logical Sensory Introvert." I can add that to the MBTI type pages if you think it would be useful. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the phrasing of that sentence was quite confused. I only understand the intent of it because I know that no one with a modicum of knowledge of socionics would give credence to such fallacious notions. Anyway, what you propose is altogether fitting and appropriate and I'd act upon it myself if my neophyte status to wikipedia and concomitant ignorance of its operative conventions were not an impediment to that objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.232.58 (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done! ThreeOfCups (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the links should not be removed as they serve a useful function. While LSI and ISTJ in practice are quite different, they share the same notation (ISTj and ISTJ) and can easily be confused on that basis. The note on the top of the page, rather than equating the two, serves to warn the reader that the two types, despite similarities in notation, are not the same thing, and allows the reader to verify that they have arrived at the right one. Seeing as this discussion is all but dead, i'll replace the links if nobody objects in the next few days. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)