Oldham's ENTj

[Ezra]

I've been having look at Oldham's depiction of the ENTj out of curiosity, and I've found that they are very different to LIEs. They are much more like ENTJs as shown by Keirsey and in MBTI. I am certainly an ENTj by Oldham's standards, but very much less like LIE.

Firstly, what is the explanation for their being different?

Secondly, does this trend run with the other types? For example, are Oldham's INTps, ENFjs and ESTps different to their socionics counterparts, and almost - if not - identical to the corresponding MBTI/Keirsey types?

[Expat]

Which depiction are you referring to?

Oldham (John Oldham MD, a renowned psychiatrist) proposed 16 "styles" based on his professional observations of personality disorders, implying that people of different styles would be inclined to develop different disorders. I'm not aware of any attempt made by him to correlate his styles with other typologies; Jimmy, the original creator of this site, attempted that and he thought that LIE = Aggressive style, which I personally disagree with. Is that what you're talking about?

[Ezra]

I think so. It's on the old the16types.info page, before it became the domain for this forum. I'm curious as to why he bothered to list the Oldham traits if they were so conflicting with the socionics' definitions of each type.

[Expat]

My personal opinion is that he knew more about the Oldham styles than he did about the socionics types, and those correlations were a hunch of his.

[Phaedrus]

If we set ourselves the goal of correlating every Oldham style with one -- and only one -- type in Socionics, I still think that the Aggressive style corresponds best with the LIE. They are different of course, but I don't think there is any other Oldham style that captures as many of the typical LIE traits as the Aggressive style does.

Compare them both with the types in the Enneagram. I claim that it is the enneatype Eight that best corresponds with the LIE, and I think that at least Expat is an 8. (Every ENTj I know IRL is also an 8). And doesn't the 8 correspond to the Aggressive style in Oldham's system?

[Expat]

If we set ourselves the goal of correlating every Oldham style with one -- and only one -- type in Socionics

Well that's what Jimmy tried to do, and I think he failed precisely because the 16 Oldham styles do not match the 16 socionics types. For instance, I think SLE is the best match for both Adventurous and Self-Confident, while Jimmy suggested SLI for Adventurous, which doesn't really work. Of course you can match the 16 to 16 one a one-to-one basis if you "have" to, but in some cases you have "correlations" that, individually, make little sense.

[Joy]

I do not see the Oldham types as correlating with Socionics types well, if at all... and I disagree with many of the correlations that Jimmy made.

[Phaedrus]

But we agree that you are an 8 in the Enneagram, Expat, and that the 8 corresponds best with LIE in Socionics. And it is also clear that of all the socionic types it is the ILI that captures most of the traits in the description of the Solitary style -- I hope that everyone at least agrees with that.

[Expat]

But we agree that you are an 8 in the Enneagram, Expat, and that the 8 corresponds best with LIE in Socionics.

The problem with this reasoning is that people end up confusing "correlates best" with "equals". I am an 8 in the Enneagram because no other enneatype fits me better; but the LIE concept, descriptions, etc fits me much better than the usual 8 image. So if you then say that the 8 fits Aggressive best, and then go on to say, aha, Aggressive correlates best with LIE, and implying that if you read the traits of the Aggressive style you have the traits of the LIE, I don't agree. For instance, I don't think that, if I develop a disorder, I will become a Sadist.

And it is also clear that of all the socionic types it is the ILI that captures most of the traits in the description of the Solitary style -- I hope that everyone at least agrees with that.

First, we should read Oldham's book (I haven't) to make sure that the available online versions really convey what he meant.

Second, yet, if you HAD to match ILI to any Oldham style, it would probably be Solitary. But I disagree with going backwards: I fit Solitary, therefore I am ILI.

[Phaedrus]

But we agree that you are an 8 in the Enneagram, Expat, and that the 8 corresponds best with LIE in Socionics.

The problem with this reasoning is that people end up confusing "correlates best" with "equals".

I have never really understood that people might think that. If you are right about it, it explains a lot of the objections people have had to my claims, but I have several times tried to clear up that misunderstanding, and I have thought (perhaps naively) that they understand the difference.

I am an 8 in the Enneagram because no other enneatype fits me better; but the LIE concept, descriptions, etc fits me much better than the usual 8 image.

Of course. I have never thought otherwise, and the socionic type descriptions should be better than the enneatype descriptions, since their theoretical foundation is more correct. I fit the socionic ILI descriptions better than the Solitary descriptions, but almost everything fits Solitary, so it is not wrong -- only more limited since it does not cover as many aspects of your psyche as Socionics, and it is insufficiently explanatory.

So if you then say that the 8 fits Aggressive best, and then go on to say, aha, Aggressive correlates best with LIE, and implying that if you read the traits of the Aggressive style you have the traits of the LIE, I don't agree.

Why would I say that? Why would I think that the Aggressive style captures everything of what it is like to be an LIE? If people have really thought that I have meant to imply something like that, then it is more easy to understand why they have objections to my views, but I can not understand why they don't understand what I have been trying to explain over and over again. How else can I explain what I mean? Some concepts you just have to grasp -- if you don't grasp them, you can't understand the thoughts that can be expressed by using them, and then you can't think those ideas. It is of course essential to understand the difference between correlation and identity for anyone who is trying to understand my views on the types.

Second, yet, if you HAD to match ILI to any Oldham style, it would probably be Solitary.

That's what I meant.

But I disagree with going backwards: I fit Solitary, therefore I am ILI.

I don't mean that it is unproblematic to go backwards. It is a similar situation in the Enneagram; both ILIs and LIIs (and perhaps some rare individuals from other types) can probably identify with enneatype 5, and maybe also with Solitary. But I claim that it is the ILI that correlates best with both enneatype 5 and with Solitary, that the ILI correlates better with them than any of the other types in Socionics.

By saying that I am not saying that the definitions of those types are identical in all those three models, neither am I saying that the groups of people (the types) in these three models are identical. They are too different for that, and their criteria for distinguishing the types are different. It is only the types in Keirsey's model and in MBTT that I claim are identical with the types in Socionics. But it is not an identity in definitions -- they are only identical in reference.

[Expat]

Why would I say that? Why would I think that the Aggressive style captures everything of what it is like to be an LIE?

I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that, rather of Ezra.

[aka-kitsune]

First, we should read Oldham's book (I haven't) to make sure that the available online versions really convey what he meant.

The way I have read the Oldham book, is it was never supposed to be taken as a "one-to-one" correspondence. No one is just typed as a "Solitary" or "Aggressive" type in the same way that one is a ENFp or such. The Oldham system merely posits that everyone is a combination of personality styles. Uniquely so in the amounts of expression each contributes to overall personality. High scores in general indicate predominance of any style.

ie: I've come out predominantly Idiosyncratic, followed by high scores in Dramatic, Self-Confident, and Sensitive.

But I'm not "Idiosyncratic" type overall. I'd be a mixture of these styles, playing against each other, augmenting certain personality elements, etc.

Each chapter does have the "DSM" correspondence of the style in its most pathological form for reference, and this is helpful to identify where the extreme of each style would tend to go. Yet, I would think that anyone with strong scores in multiple styles might be susceptible to any of the associated psychopathologies, not only the one they score highest.

[Ezra]

If we set ourselves the goal of correlating every Oldham style with one -- and only one -- type in Socionics, I still think that the Aggressive style corresponds best with the LIE. They are different of course, but I don't think there is any other Oldham style that captures as many of the typical LIE traits as the Aggressive style does.

Compare them both with the types in the Enneagram. I claim that it is the enneatype Eight that best corresponds with the LIE, and I think that at least Expat is an 8. (Every ENTj I know IRL is also an 8). And doesn't the 8 correspond to the Aggressive style in Oldham's system?

I disagree. I think SLE correlates best with the 8. LIE does to some extent, but until someone offers me an explanation as to how else Se can manifest itself in the LIE contrary to that which Expat claims it can (on Wikisocion), I refuse to believe 8s can be LIEs.

[Ezra]

But we agree that you are an 8 in the Enneagram, Expat, and that the 8 corresponds best with LIE in Socionics. And it is also clear that of all the socionic types it is the ILI that captures most of the traits in the description of the Solitary style -- I hope that everyone at least agrees with that.

I don't - I've put forward the possibility of his being a 6w5. He expressed the fact that he needs Se on at least one occasion in the past - I asked him if he needs a prod ever, and he said he did - and 8s are most adept in Se.

[Ezra]

Of course. I have never thought otherwise, and the socionic type descriptions should be better than the enneatype descriptions, since their theoretical foundation is more correct.

Not "more correct", but "less obscure". That is more fitting.

[Ezra]

Why would I say that? Why would I think that the Aggressive style captures everything of what it is like to be an LIE?

I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that, rather of Ezra.

But Expat, the only time I made the claim that I was LIE was when I understood little of socionics.

I stand by my claims that I am most fitted to ENTJ both in terms of MBTI and Keirsey, and that I am ENTj according to Oldham. Socionics is different. You with the Enneagram can be compared with me to Socionics. You are 8 you say because you don't fit any of the other types. Well, I am ESTp, because as far as I'm concerned, I don't fit any of the other types.

[Expat]

First: the LIE description in the Wiki is, to me, an accurate description of myself as well (but I was careful not to include petty details that might apply only to myself). Of the available LIE descriptions, both the Stratievskaya and socioscope descriptions fit me very well too; the Filatova one slightly less so, although it's still recognizable.

Second: if Ezra's conception of what an 8 is like is totally incompatible with those LIE descriptions, then, it's fine, I do not correspond to his understanding of an 8.

Third: I most definitely do not recognize myself as a 6, whichever wing, above all if you start including the levels of health and the arrows.

I think that 8w9 fits me best, however imperfectly. If Ezra insists, "no way you are an 8", I will insist, "no way I am a 6". It is a discussion of secondary interest to me.

[Ezra]

First: the LIE description in the Wiki is, to me, an accurate description of myself as well (but I was careful not to include petty details that might apply only to myself). Of the available LIE descriptions, both the Stratievskaya and socioscope descriptions fit me very well too; the Filatova one slightly less so, although it's still recognizable.

Second: if Ezra's conception of what an 8 is like is totally incompatible with those LIE descriptions, then, it's fine, I do not correspond to his understanding of an 8.

Third: I most definitely do not recognize myself as a 6, whichever wing, above all if you start including the levels of health and the arrows.

I think that 8w9 fits me best, however imperfectly. If Ezra insists, "no way you are an 8", I will insist, "no way I am a 6". It is a discussion of secondary interest to me.

Expat, I am willing to accept that you are an 8 WHEN AND IF YOU GIVE ME ANOTHER DESCRIPTION (BESIDES THE WIKISOCION ONE) OF HOW SE CAN MANIFEST ITSELF IN THE LIEs. Until that point, I can't. So please, do me a favour by furthering my understanding of socionics, and explain to me if there is another way Se can be in the LIEs. Also, are you sure you're not a 5? Are you positive? Or have you just got a very strong connection to 5 like I have? I just can't see for shit how an 8 would need a prod or experiences doubt and hesitation frequently. Ever. Okay, 8w9s are less self-starting than 8w7s, but not THAT less self-starting. Look at Castro. Did he need a prod to revolutionise Cuba? Of course not. How about Martin Luther King in order to secure black rights? No, not him either. Picasso to paint? John Wayne or Marlon Brando or Charlton Heston to churn out film after film? All 8w9s. THEY organised themselves and everyone ELSE. They had PLENTY of vision. Most of them were undoubtedly LIEs. And yes, of course they can be LIEs. If you tell me if there's another way Se shows itself in LIEs.

Lastly, I don't trust Oldham. I just did a test, and it came out as Sensitive (INFj), followed by Mercurial or Dramatic or something, I can't remember. What bullshit. I would never, ever consider INFj. It is simply not me.

[aka-kitsune]

Lastly, I don't trust Oldham. I just did a test, and it came out as Sensitive (INFj), followed by Mercurial or Dramatic or something, I can't remember. What bullshit. I would never, ever consider INFj. It is simply not me.

I can definitely believe Mercurial and Dramatic for you. And again... why the necessity of one-to-one correlations that may or may not even be accurate between these systems?? What is the need to force a star-shaped peg?

[Ezra]

How? How the fuck do you manage to "believe Mercurial and Dramatic for me"? How? There is no logic. None. AT ALL. And Sensitive? Can you explain that? No, didn't think so. Why not? BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXPLANATION - quite plainly, it is a load of wank.

[Joy]

Ezra: http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=249674#249674

[aka-kitsune]

How? How the fuck do you manage to "believe Mercurial and Dramatic for me"? How? There is no logic. None. AT ALL. And Sensitive? Can you explain that? No, didn't think so. Why not? BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXPLANATION - quite plainly, it is a load of wank.

And you've thoroughly read the full descriptions of these personality styles in the Oldham book, right? Because it would be entirely ill-informed to make a decision on the basis of your narrow definition of a single WORD...

[Ezra]

I don't need to fully read. I just need general words to get a general vibe. Sum me up in a word: Sensitive. NO one would say that. No one.

[Ezra]

Anyway, cheers for modifying that description Expat or Joy or whoever. It makes more sense now. And Joy, cheers for clearing up the thing about Se as 6th function. It makes more sense to me now. LIE is more like me.

[Gilly]

I agree with Joy. There are superficial similarities, but the only system that has even somewhat credible correlations to Socionics would be Enneagram.

[Ezra]

I agree. I don't like it when people say that the Enneagram is in some way shitter than socionics, or that they can't be correlated, because they can. Quite easily. Not totally, but they can. And that's what counts.