[Ray Mabry]

I already had a discussion with jezroue about socionics in another thread. He is very set in his opinions and fully trusts the information on the Socionics.com website. I pointed out to him the similarities in functions and told him that a Fi dominant under MBTI cannot be a Si dominant in socionics. But he just kept quoting me articles from Socionics.com website as a reply and said that I do not understand the functions. I chided him for not thinking on his own and doing more research but instead fully trusting and accepting information that the first socionics website he googled up presented to him. I'm not willing to spend any more of my time discussing this with other people who fail to see how two systems are very similar and instead invent some kind of peculiar loops of logic to justify the incorrect information that they have read somewhere on the internet and came to fully trust. So our discussion finished with me departing to spend my time on more interesting things than butting heads with yet another person who doesn't think on his own and takes whatever is written on Socionics.com website as his gospel.

Oh, well I suppose then that I won't put anymore into the argument then I already have myself. It really makes me upset the misconceptions people have because it makes it near impossible to have a clear conversation about the theories.



In the beginning the only reason I really thought the theories functions were the same is because I was studying from the functions forward and I had no idea there was any perceived differences so when people started telling me they were different it confused me because I had spent all of this time comparing them and saw no difference so I became really confused. But i'm glad you set me in the right direction. So again I sincerely thank you. After reading Jung's work it all makes logical sense. Both theories are based on his work and don't stray away from it too much but rather add to it. It's obvious that functionally everything else is the same even if the systems differ a bit.

(Sighs) You know, when my teachers used to complain about sources I was always like "This doesn't make sense I got this source from such and such the site sounds official enough so why is it a problem." But now I see what that can lead to. I mean really i'd just suggest everyone get Jung's book before moving forward because the world wide web is like a jungle.

[jezroue]

MBTI does not say that Sensing and Intuition are P functions but only if they are extraverted.

P in MBTI means that they type's perceiving function is extroverted. That is it. It is designed to set up the cognitive functions. That's all. ISTJ in MBTI is still a type with a dominant perceiving function...Si is STILL a perceiving function! However, what MBTI does surmise is that this types perceiving function will not be easily seen by others, which its true even by Jung's theory. But the J in ISTJ is to show that their Judging function is extroverted which will likely be a bit more easily to detect.

The J and P dimensions of the theories differ in what they are trying to point out but still lead back to the same types that Jung's theory had defined.

You ARE right...in your explanation, in MBTI, in seeing through the eyes of an MBTI user (I did the same in my early MBTI years). The seeing and detecting thing I understand. BUT you took his words out of context in his explanation. That'll happen when you're really used to one discipline and use it to figure out another one. I also didn't expect highly immersed MBTI users like you and @vel to read thoroughly his essays and OTHER sites that I added. No one likes to do that. I'm just an idiot who had a lot of time to empty his mind in the past : )

BIG PICTURE: we get the basic definitions of Jung in their respective theories. I never faulted anyone in this area.

ISTJ and ISTp are the same. ENTP and ENTp are the same. They lead back to the same types. And the functions are still based of the same dichotomies. I/E and SNFT. J and P were added on by both theories only to set up the order of the cognitive functions for the types and the differences in the order allow for J and P to define different things in different theories. But there are no differences in the functions other than the fact that Socionics functions aren't as generalized and rightfully so. Socionics set out to expand upon and clarify Jung's theory while the MBTI was simply made to test for type.

Yes and no. And wow. Half your explanation is exactly what was in that first article...

GLOBAL PROBLEM: using definitions and their order to say something is. ex. Toyota Car A is the same as Car B because of the engine.

WHAT'S GOING ON: using your understanding of MBTI definitions, comparing it to Socionic ordering and saying they're the same. Bottom-up Approach.

My Observations: most people who are experienced and type themselves correctly find they're the same in BOTH theories. I'M AN ISFP(ISFp) IN BOTH SYSTEMS! Top.....just Top approach

[jezroue]

I already had a discussion with jezroue about socionics in another thread. He is very set in his opinions and fully trusts the information on the Socionics.com website. I pointed out to him the similarities in functions and told him that a Fi dominant under MBTI cannot be a Si dominant in socionics. But he just kept quoting me articles from Socionics.com website as a reply and said that I do not understand the functions. I chided him for not thinking on his own and doing more research but instead fully trusting and accepting information that the first socionics website he googled up presented to him. I'm not willing to spend any more of my time discussing this with other people who fail to see how two systems are very similar and instead invent some kind of peculiar loops of logic to justify the incorrect information that they have read somewhere on the internet and came to fully trust. So our discussion finished with me departing to spend my time on more interesting things than butting heads with yet another person who doesn't think on his own and takes whatever is written on Socionics.com website as his gospel.

@vel

To You: I love you too. I told you you were partially correct. Never called you out on not knowing your functions. Just a certain ordering-causation mistake you made... and make in many many different threads.

What I Offered: 3 No's. No means No. I told you several times I'm an ISF(p) in both theories. But nope. You kept calling me other personality types.

Your Actions: You're knowledgable in one theory. That's excellent. But don't knock on another person's work. I provided Socionics.com and Socioniko.net as a quick reference. Socionics.com is run by Sergei and it's a good place for MBTI-->Socionics transition (he uses MBTI language, which I still prefer). I don't value every part of his site but he's helped enlighten more people in a website than you with 3000 social posts.

Let's be practical and productive as we don't have time to digest many articles: It was something that was always sidestepped in your endless explanations. How am I both ISFP/ISFp -- the same in both theories?

[bigtex1989]

As far as mates go, I want a girl that is reasonable attractive (you don't have to be a super model, but give me something to work with) intelligent enough to carry on a conversation about most things that my mind wanders to, not take any argument personally, and communicate expectations clearly BUT concisely to me.

I need my freedom sexually, intellectually, emotionally, everything. Not necessarily all the time, but she can't smother me. I'm really laissez-faire about pretty much everything, so if she wants things done, then she needs to be able to communicate. Also, maybe a swinger? That would be cool. I also want a girl that can wear the pants in the relationship and not be intimidated by the fact that I will challenge her authority at nearly every turn. She also needs to be able to pick her battles, or it's going to be a long life for her.....or a short life for me!

[AlexOrgasmic]

After looking more at profiles for them, I think the perfect match would be an INFJ, or maybe an INFP.

[vel]

No means No. I told you several times I'm an ISF(p) in both theories. But nope. You kept calling me other personality types.

Lol you make it sound like some sort of sexual advance of some said "I said no and it means no!". If you re-read what I have posted not once have I called you another type. I just inquired how your can claim to be Fi-Se personality under one system and Si-Fe personality under the other system when they use same jungian functions. How can you rationalize this to yourself? I also called your attention to the fact that Socionics.com has mismatched their profiles to functions. This is easy to see from their Who is who? page. Look at their list of famous people - they have flipped all the introverts around. They assign function of Ni-Fe to Balzac and Ti-Ne to Robespierre, Ni-Fe to Esenin and Fi-Ne to Dostoyevsky. Anybody who is familiar with biographies of these people and literally works of Balzac, Esenin, and Dostoyevsky will see that this assignment is wrong. So I am not surprised that you have mis-typed yourself as ISFp following this website.

Your Actions: You're knowledgable in one theory. That's excellent. But don't knock on another person's work. I provided Socionics.com and Socioniko.net as a quick reference. Socionics.com is run by Sergei and it's a good place for MBTI-->Socionics transition (he uses MBTI language, which I still prefer). I don't value every part of his site but he's helped enlighten more people in a website than you with 3000 social posts.

If by enlighten you mean confuse like he has confused you with his wrong profile assignments, I agree. And I also agree that he will proceed to confuse more people. I would not be surprised if his website is the main reason why so many people think socionics is bollocks and never study the system.

How am I both ISFP/ISFp -- the same in both theories?

You just claimed to be INFp in both theories and I shall quote below:

I told you several times I'm an ISF(p) in both theories.

[jezroue]

Lol you make it sound like some sort of sexual advance of some said "I said no and it means no!". If you re-read what I have posted not once have I called you another type. I just inquired how your can claim to be Fi-Se personality under one system and Si-Fe personality under the other system when they use same jungian functions. How can you rationalize this to yourself? I also called your attention to the fact that Socionics.com has mismatched their profiles to functions. This is easy to see from their Who is who? page. Look at their list of famous people - they have flipped all the introverts around. They assign function of Ni-Fe to Balzac and Ti-Ne to Robespierre, Ni-Fe to Esenin and Fi-Ne to Dostoyevsky. Anybody who is familiar with biographies of these people and literally works of Balzac, Esenin, and Dostoyevsky will see that this assignment is wrong. So I am not surprised that you have mis-typed yourself as ISFp following this website.

I have a good sense of humor. I can rationalize it because I know both systems and how they've come to define their similar types. I'm testing you to see if YOU know.

Issue is you've made countless claims that it's 100% accurate it can be converted a-la your method. I provided several sources to disprove it, while saying no and asking for you to discontinue that practice, as it will confuse. There was even a global explanation where the misunderstanding lies: using one system's definitions and relating its order to another order causes a false result.

Metaphor of this error goes like: because this Blue Car has an engine and this other car has an engine it MUST be the same Car that's Blue.

You still didn't answer my question how I fall into the same ISF(p) descriptions for BOTH theories...

You don't answer because you don't know. Yet you've written in dozens of places your method is the solution.


Calling me non - ISF(p) here: (Ethical Sensing Introtim = ISFj)

The ordering in socionics is same. Not sure what you're talking about. Read through your own type's profile on Wikisocion: Ethical Sensing Introtim - Wikisocion It describes your strongest functions as Fi, Se, Ni, and Te which is exactly same as the ordering under MBTI. If you compare descriptions of functions between socionics and MBTI yes you will see that they are practically the same. They are not exactly the same word for word, but then neither any two descriptions of functions from two different MBTI sources are ever same word for word.

Here:

Look at what functions SEI, the sensing ethical introvert, has assigned under socionics. It has functions of Si (sensing) Fe (ethical) and I for introvert. Reference: Sensing Ethical Introtim - Wikisocion. This corresponds to ISFJ in MBTI. Reference: ISFJ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. But the OP is talking about MBTI ISFP which in Wikisocion is assigned as ENTP's conflictor. Thus Goaty and I were right about ISPF and ENTP being a conflict relation in socionics.

God, I don't know if it's a typo but even in this response:

You just claimed to be INFp in both theories and I shall quote below:

[vel]

You still didn't answer my question how I fall into the same ISF(p) descriptions for BOTH theories...

Because you have typed yourself using information from Socionic.com website which has mis-matched the profiles. You have read the ISFp profile on that website and of course it matches your personality the best. What you are not aware of is that this is really the ISFj profile not the ISFp one because as I have already stated many times this website has mis-matches the profiles to four-letter codes and functions associated with these codes. I would advise you to not refer to Socionics.com website for your socionics information but instead use Wikisocion - Socionics Wiki which contains accurate information on socionics.

I have also asked you to explain how you made sense of being Fi-Se personality type under one system and Si-Fe under the other. If you look here Who is who? you will see that Socionics.com website matches functions of Si-Fe to ISFp which you claim yourself to be. Yet under MBTI you claim to be ISFP that has functional order of Fi-Se. You still have not explained your thinking process of how you made sense out of being SiFe under one system and FiSe under another system though both systems them use the same functions. Even if you claim that the functions are somewhat different this is a very radical difference in functional order. So please explain your rationalization process here.

Calling me non - ISF(p) here: (Ethical Sensing Introtim = ISFj)

God, I don't know if it's a typo but even in this response:

I dont see myself calling you a non-ISF(p). You remind me of my ISFP acquaintance. I am simply rationalizing something with my introverted logic, speaking objectively and in general. But he has no understanding of Ti and always takes it personally as if I'm speaking exactly about him and about his situation. No, I haven't called you a non-ISF(p) I was merely demonstrating to you how socionics.com website mismatches their profiles to four-letter codes.

[jezroue]

@vel

He didn't mismatch anything. His terminology is just so he can have a larger audience that understands.

You, for example:

INFj = Ethical Intuitive Introtim (EII)

compare with

INFp = Intuitive Ethical Introtim (IEI)

Socionics+ You always have the dominant function consistently in the front.

Loosen up your ego and try to look at this with an open mind again. Give it an hour or more if need be. I was stuck in MBTI world just like you once were. If you can "see" the inconsistency that's the easy part. Studying Socionics from the bottom is the longer option but it's not difficult, unpopular or worthless. It has a stronger foundation that's actually less confusing now that I know both. That foundation is also what allows it to predict psychological compatibility rather well. Btw: I still use the 4 letter system even with Socionics. It's easier.

http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/ (If you don't jive with the writer below: ENFp I think)
http://www.socionics.com/articles/mbti.htm

@Ray Mabry ENTps are my duals and I respect them a lot. But you wouldn't be the first (logical subtype) that took a small piece of a story, article, my conversation and intuit-blasted it out of the water before grasping the whole thing. What he's saying is true and a part of the picture of why there are problems. Read some of the comments for more information. This is my wisdom on both disciplines.


Also, @vel and @Ray Mabry relax on the remarks about this website or that website. Both theories are relatively young in the world. Y'all haven't mentioned anything I haven't heard about. I've got books and over a hundred pages of ALL of those websites analysis' highlighted, commented and tested on clients and patients. Lots of Mindmaps on my walls. I even attempt to tie in NLP and VKA to individual types.

[vel]

He didn't mismatch anything. His terminology is just so he can have a larger audience that understands.

There is no problem with his terminology. The problem is that he linked descriptive profile of ISFp to ISFj functions. He mis-matched the profiles to functions and four letter codes.

Loosen up your ego and try to look at this with an open mind again. Give it an hour or more if need be. I was stuck in MBTI world just like you once were. If you can "see" the inconsistency that's the easy part.

Well I have "loosened my mind" and have given you many chances to explain your understanding how you claim to be FiSe under one system and SiFe type under the other system considering they are using same jungian functions. But you cannot provide a rational explanation for it. Seems you have just taken what Socionics.com tells you on blind belief with no reasoning of your own behind it.

I am not trying to apply MBTI to socionics. If you read about functions in Wikisocion it becomes very clear that Ganin has mis-matched his profiles for introverts. You don't need to reference anything on MBTI to understand that. In fact all of the reference I have provided for you that support my claim have been from socionics websites, not from MBTI websites. The only thing that MBTI has to do with this discussion is that we happened to meet and start discussing this on an MBTI forum.