# People who ignore socionics to avoid accepting their real type...



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Chest said:


> this notion of dual is a bunch of crap IMO. The only reason why someone would date their opposite is because they're trying to compensate for their lack of development in that area (ex: strong feeler dating strong thinker)


Actually, that's precisely the point of duality. Dual types are strong in each other's weak points but value the same information types, so they can balance each other out in the most comfortable manner. This doesn't mean they'll always click, or that every dual pair is romantically compatible or even has to be; it just has the highest potential for ease of communication and task-splitting.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

UglierBetty said:


> I'm super new to Socionics but isn't a MBTI ISFJ an SEI?
> (Or are you doing that "switch the J and P" thing that they do)


You may want to wait until you pass the "super fervent convert" stage to start raging about all the other mistypes in the other system.

Concerning system compatibility (or lack thereof), you'll find different views on that. Some people claim the MBTI functions are the exact same as Socionics IMs. Others say they are not (which is where I fall). Still others pull in Jung and try to cram his functions into the Socionics system. We're a fairly diverse lot.


----------



## somebodysisyphus (Jun 18, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> I suggest that SF's and NT's are generally duals/good partners, and I get told by """"""""NT's""""""""" that they would 'kill themselves if they ever had to date an SF.'


I love me an ESFP. That's the only type that really understands the mind of an INTP. Not even an INFJ (literally the most understanding of the types, imo) could understand an INTP as well as an ESFP could. This was just my experience with dating the two types. I would be careful saying all SF's though. I honestly love ESFJ's but only from a distance and only in a friendship or caretaker sort of way. They can get pretty 'high and mighty' sometimes and it puts me off. I get the same way with them as well. 

In socionics the ESFJ and the INTP are relations of conflict... I always find it easier to argue with the ESFJ more than anyone else. This sometimes manifests as teasing (which is fun for the both of us) but usually one of us takes it too far. This could be because the Fe dom (ESFJ) wants me to be more expressive and the Te dom (INTP) wants the ESFJ to be more mindful. We're basically both always picking on each other's weakest functions and it's never good. 

But this is not how it is with the ESFP's and INTP's *whatsoever.* I think INTP's have to have experience being in a relationship with an ESFP first before we can really think 'yeah, this person is perfect.' I used to think ESFP's annoyed the shit out of me but this is because I was so closed minded to they way they expressed themselves. It was foreign to me and it looked like a facade.



UglierBetty said:


> I guess it's a good way to weed out people who are faking their type.


I wouldn't say they're faking their type. Try to understand that most NT's are stubborn. We will literally reinvent the wheel just so we know that it works properly. :blushed: I know this is hard to understand but we only believe what is factual and what we have experience with. We don't believe something just because somebody said it. We don't trust people on their word. Sadly, this will never happen unless it's an older, more experienced INTP.

I know firsthand that not many ESFP's and INTP's have many chances to be put in a situation where they can develop a relationship because... they're both in totally different environments. It really is rare for the two to come together. Just something to keep in mind when NT's are being stubborn about it. We really have to have the experience in order to understand. This is what got me interested in socionics in the first place.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Kanerou said:


> Actually, that's precisely the point of duality. Dual types are strong in each other's weak points but value the same information types, so they can balance each other out in the most comfortable manner. This doesn't mean they'll always click, or that every dual pair is romantically compatible or even has to be; it just has the highest potential for ease of communication and task-splitting.


perhaps, it takes guts though I gotta tell you


----------



## Sparkling (Jul 12, 2013)

The whole socionics seems to be an unreliable, stinky thing. Just look at description of ISFp (ISFJ in MBTI) and ISFj (ISFP MBTI) : ESI is shown as aggressive type, but ISFJ MBTI > more aggressive than ISFP MBTI. 70% of ESI description suits ISFJ MBTI. No wonder why I do not take this "socionics compatibility" seriously.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

blue_moon said:


> The whole socionics seems to be an unreliable, stinky thing. Just look at description of ISFp (ISFJ in MBTI) and ISFj (ISFP MBTI) : ESI is shown as aggressive type, but ISFJ MBTI > more aggressive than ISFP MBTI. 70% of ESI description suits ISFJ MBTI. No wonder why I do not take this "socionics compatibility" seriously.


Most people who say its MBTI are actually talking about Keirsey's types, which are not MBTI. A MBTI description of I*SFJ is basically this:*

ISFJ
Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Committed and steady in meeting their obligations. Thorough, painstaking, and accurate. Loyal, considerate, notice and remember specifics about people who are important to them, concerned with how others feel. Strive to create an orderly and harmonious environment at work and at home.

*This is basically Socionics ISFp-SEI as well.*

*ISFP is this:*

ISFP
Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what’s going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others.

*Which is basically ESI as well.*

Now in Keirseys types you don't do a J/P switch when comparing to socionics, because it translates directly aka Socionics ESI is keirsey's ISFJ.
*
Most internet descriptions out there are based on Keirsey's types because they are more popular and easy to understand compared to MBTI.*

I'd argue that for example our ISFP and ISFJ forums have people from both sides mistyping as the other because of this confusion that is created. If one is clearly a keirseyan ISFP, then that translates more likely into MBTI ISFJ and Socionics ISFp.

^^; it is also a well known fact that people often misinterpret Si as Fi especially if that person is a sensor due to the similarities in how those two functions are understood, so someone might think they are Fi dom with heavy Se, but in fact that's just going to be heavy Si dominace.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

blue_moon said:


> The whole socionics seems to be an unreliable, stinky thing. Just look at description of ISFp (ISFJ in MBTI) and ISFj (ISFP MBTI) : ESI is shown as aggressive type, but ISFJ MBTI > more aggressive than ISFP MBTI. 70% of ESI description suits ISFJ MBTI. No wonder why I do not take this "socionics compatibility" seriously.


It's not sticky at all actually once you understand the reasons and causes for these differences. Essentially MBTI and Socionics describe different "sides" of the same type. If you describe the same object, such as a car for example, from interior vs. from its exterior then of course your descriptive profiles will sound different even though you have been describing the exact same car. That's the conundrum of MBTI and Socionics profiles when it comes to introverted types such as INFP and ISFJ. It takes some time to understand this, but once you get it it all becomes very clear.


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

blue_moon said:


> The whole socionics seems to be an unreliable, stinky thing. Just look at description of ISFp (ISFJ in MBTI) and ISFj (ISFP MBTI) : ESI is shown as aggressive type, but ISFJ MBTI > more aggressive than ISFP MBTI. 70% of ESI description suits ISFJ MBTI. No wonder why I do not take this "socionics compatibility" seriously.


I'm an ESI, I would say I'm pretty aggressive. I'm also very unlikely to be an Fe user.


----------



## Sparkling (Jul 12, 2013)

Ghostsoul said:


> I'm an ESI, I would say I'm pretty aggressive. I'm also very unlikely to be an Fe user.


I did not mean 'aggressiveness' in in the colloquial sense of the word. I now ISFP can due to Se.
Doubt is whether ISFP = ESI (ISfj) as ISFP is fragile, vulnerable personality, while ESI is one of the most stable, hard - bitten and resistant types in socionics. That's huge discrepancy.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

blue_moon said:


> I did not mean 'aggressiveness' in in the colloquial sense of the word. I now ISFP can due to Se.
> Doubt is whether ISFP = ESI (ISfj) as ISFP is fragile, vulnerable personality, while ESI is one of the most stable, hard - bitten and resistant types in socionics. That's huge discrepancy.


I don't see ISFP as fragile at all. Where did you get that from the profiles? It just suggests that they are artistic pretty much.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

blue_moon said:


> ISFP is fragile


like a potato chip is fragile under a titanium thermonuclear-proof bunker.


----------



## intp_gurl (Mar 8, 2014)

I would have never believe in socionics if I hadn't experienced it. You just have to experience it, and this is coming from someone extremely skeptical, especially to other people's theories. I tend to like to create my own. The psychological closeness...I have experienced it. So for me I try to convince others. On paper it looks like yuck, this person is nothing of what I want.....in actuality, in real life it's like omg.

I've spoken to other types who have experienced it. And they have the same omg...if you told me I never would have imagined. So personally, you just have to live it to believe it.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

blue_moon said:


> I did not mean 'aggressiveness' in in the colloquial sense of the word. I now ISFP can due to Se.
> Doubt is whether ISFP = ESI (ISfj) as ISFP is fragile, vulnerable personality, while ESI is one of the most stable, hard - bitten and resistant types in socionics. That's huge discrepancy.


I cannot speak for how the ISFP is portrayed, but I wonder if you aren't overemphasizing the hardass part of the ESI type. We're plenty capable of being soft, warm, and affectionate; we're just willing to cut out/cut off/dismiss those who sufficiently cross our values, and we will call out offenders if/when we see the need. We are still Fi types. We are interested in others' feelings and in observing and molding our relationships, and we can and will adapt our words and our actions to the relationship at hand. We can determine and respect the values of those around us, or we can choose to flaunt those values if they sufficiently offend us. (For example, I would not swear in front of fellow church members unless I knew they were OK with it, but I wore jeans every Sunday because the pastor's wife claimed that not dressing up showed a lack of seriousness/care about church, and that was stupid.) We definitely care about not hurting those we are close to, and we will defend them if necessary. And we are perfectly capable of being vulnerable with those we trust.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Ghostsoul said:


> I'm an ESI, I would say I'm pretty aggressive. I'm also very unlikely to be an Fe user.


aggressive...thanks


----------



## Sparkling (Jul 12, 2013)

Kanerou said:


> I cannot speak for how the ISFP is portrayed, but I wonder if you aren't overemphasizing the hardass part of the ESI type. We're plenty capable of being soft, warm, and affectionate; we're just willing to cut out/cut off/dismiss those who sufficiently cross our values, and we will call out offenders if/when we see the need. We are still Fi types. We are interested in others' feelings and in observing and molding our relationships, and we can and will adapt our words and our actions to the relationship at hand. We can determine and respect the values of those around us, or we can choose to flaunt those values if they sufficiently offend us. (For example, I would not swear in front of fellow church members unless I knew they were OK with it, but I wore jeans every Sunday because the pastor's wife claimed that not dressing up showed a lack of seriousness/care about church, and that was stupid.) We definitely care about not hurting those we are close to, and we will defend them if necessary. And we are perfectly capable of being vulnerable with those we trust.


yeah, yeah ...
ESI domain according to wiksocion.org


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

Just to say:
ESI in socionics is far closer to my personality than the ISFP descriptions in MBTI I have read.
I suppose you could get a clearer picture by putting the two together.


----------



## Sparkling (Jul 12, 2013)

-Ephemeral- said:


> I don't see ISFP as fragile at all. Where did you get that from the profiles? It just suggests that they are artistic pretty much.


There is a lot of ISFP profile descriptions suggesting their emotional fragality, lower self - esteem or social adaptability, insecurity. First of all, Fi is the most vulnerabile function from all. ISFP is different from its extraverted cousin, as Fi in ESFPs is sheltered with their sturdy Se. While in ISFP Fi is the most exposed part of us, our first modem of reaction.
Fi build upon the inner system ideals and values, is easily effected by surrounding not reflecting them. It doesn't take much to evoke strong emotions. Fi doms live constantly in the bubble of very intensive, deep emotions which are not easy released outside (as for Fe). Therefore, in case of strong feelings affecting a person over a longer period, these are experienced as an internal storm from which you cannot escape. The fact that ISFPs are very nonverbal (relatively to others MBTI typres) causes that ISFP can have difficulties with naming these emotions and analyzing them, what reinforce the impression of internal turmoil. As Fi is first function and Se second, ISFP is more prone to act first on these emotions and next then try across them rationally (prone to impulsiveness). That causes ISFP can make faux - pas, which later will regret and it puts him in an unfovorable position. Situations that he may have no idea how to handle.


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

When I take socionics I get INFJ

*holds gun to head, weeps*


----------



## Fire Away (Nov 29, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> I would kill myself if I had to date an SF...I mean, you're just asking for skin cancer. You need the lotion to keep OUT the sun, not multiply its effects.


You would kill yourself if you had to date an SF?

Good job singling out a fraction of the world.


----------



## lightwing (Feb 17, 2013)

I've been curious of the correlation myself. The tests I've taken place me SLI, ISTp. I'm pretty sure MBTI ISTJ is the best fit for me, though lately I've been close to the 50/50 on T/F and J/P. Does that sound about right? Cognitive functions seem to line up if "Te blocked with Si" is the same as saying Si dom, Te Aux. I know a little about all this, but less about Socionics compared to MBTI.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

TopCatLSD said:


> You would kill yourself if you had to date an SF?
> 
> Good job singling out a fraction of the world.


I do believe s/he was making a bad SPF joke.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

blue_moon said:


> yeah, yeah ...
> ESI domain according to wiksocion.org


That's an exaggeration for effect. I'm pretty sure that the smallest minority of ESIs possible actually go around acting like they're in a grotesque revenge-porn flick. We will mobilize if we feel threatened, but it's not our default state.

Edit: Keep in mind that in the civilized parts of the world, violence is typically discouraged, and not all ESIs are necessarily violent. As such, we find others ways to punish offenders, like speaking up, cutting them off, informing others of their misdeeds so those people know to steer clear, etc.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

TopCatLSD said:


> You would kill yourself if you had to date an SF?
> 
> Good job singling out a fraction of the world.


Well, its a free market, and if I dont want to get sunburned, I dont have to get sunburned.


----------



## intp_gurl (Mar 8, 2014)

Ok, for me its like this

if you haven't lived it.....its a bunch of space aged, feel good, feeler crap

but if you have experienced it, lived it felt it....then its real

I've lived it, I love it.....not crap to me anymore. That comming from a robot like intp....well its a lot to say


spoke to intj ( also robot like, according to some) who are with their dual ---no complaints. Spoke to enfp with dual...no complaints. 

I have lived it... no complaints. So for me, it aint no feel good crap cuz I know it personally.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

On ESI:

Remember, many of the English translations were written by Gulenko, who is an LII - not exactly the best guide to what's going on inside an ESI. 

I don't think the socionics descriptions are talking about "aggressiveness" as in expansive, sweeping force. In my experience, ESI are not at all aggressive in this sense. They, as a static type, are more firm and rigid within their own structures than they are overtly aggressive. They would call it not taking crap from others, etc. It's difficult to change an ESI's mind, and they tend to not be fond of change, trying to see potentials, or wild convoluted ideas. That, to me, is more of a tipoff to someone being this type, as it is true for both the sharp, harsh ESI and soft, sensitive ESI. 

The tricky thing about this type is that it presents itself trait-wise in a large number of ways. I know some ESI who are like the socionics type descriptions (prude, rigid), others who are almost hypersensitive to conflict and ill-feelings, others who are almost always zoned out, others who are snide and emotionally manipulative, and others still who are good-humored, smiley, and appeasing to others. The thing they all share is a mistrust of/reticence to change, and an ability to mobilize and exert when sudden scenarios require it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

blue_moon said:


> There is a lot of ISFP profile descriptions suggesting their emotional fragality, lower self - esteem or social adaptability, insecurity.


Sure, but that's hardly function-related in itself.



> First of all, Fi is the most vulnerabile function from all. ISFP is different from its extraverted cousin, as Fi in ESFPs is sheltered with their sturdy Se. While in ISFP Fi is the most exposed part of us, our first modem of reaction.
> Fi build upon the inner system ideals and values, is easily effected by surrounding not reflecting them. It doesn't take much to evoke strong emotions. Fi doms live constantly in the bubble of very intensive, deep emotions which are not easy released outside (as for Fe). Therefore, in case of strong feelings affecting a person over a longer period, these are experienced as an internal storm from which you cannot escape. The fact that ISFPs are very nonverbal (relatively to others MBTI typres) causes that ISFP can have difficulties with naming these emotions and analyzing them, what reinforce the impression of internal turmoil.


I would say inability to articulate oneself is more related to cognitive introversion as a whole. The reason for this is because that when one's cognition is so subjectively biased, one's understanding of the world takes upon such an abstract form it can be difficult to explain to an outsider. 



> As Fi is first function and Se second, ISFP is more prone to act first on these emotions and next then try across them rationally (prone to impulsiveness). That causes ISFP can make faux - pas, which later will regret and it puts him in an unfovorable position. Situations that he may have no idea how to handle.


I fail to see why that would be unique to ISFPs. Also, I would be careful to think of Fi doms as acting on "emotions" as much as they rationalize through feeling. Not quite the same imo.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Figure said:


> On ESI:
> 
> Remember, many of the English translations were written by Gulenko, who is an LII - not exactly the best guide to what's going on inside an ESI.
> 
> I don't think the socionics descriptions are talking about "aggressiveness" as in expansive, sweeping force. In my experience, ESI are not at all aggressive in this sense. They, as a static type, are more firm and rigid within their own structures than they are overtly aggressive. They would call it not taking crap from others, etc. It's difficult to change an ESI's mind, and they tend to not be fond of change, trying to see potentials, or wild convoluted ideas. That, to me, is more of a tipoff to someone being this type, as it is true for both the sharp, harsh ESI and soft, sensitive ESI.


Right, we are Fi before we are Se, so our Se typically comes out in service of our Fi.

For myself, I have a slightly more complex view on stability and change. I want the right to change when I wish to do so. However, I demand that the world around me remain the same unless I wish otherwise. Unforeseen change, or change that I do not approve of, irks me quite a bit and can make me worry. And my wishes to change are typically weighed against other factors, like consequences, particularly material security.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Adding to the above, I actually enjoy when someone else can get me out of the house and trying something new. Just don't try and uproot me and move me half across the country (or into the next state). I actually grew up moving a few times and changing schools constantly; it's solidified my homebody tendencies. I've been in this apartment since '12, and I've no wish to move and won't until I have to. (It's also too much work moving all this crap.)


----------



## Sparkling (Jul 12, 2013)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Sure, but that's hardly function-related in itself.


Disagree. Our function stack is our wiring for our perceiving and expression. This placing of function (what function and in what order) determines certain features. For sure you can give me an example of bullying ISFP and sissy ENTJ. But when looking at population as a whole, it is not hard to observe certain common characterisctics for each type separately. For exampl. Te & Fe are pushy, asserted functions so it is less likely Fe/Te dom to be insecure or taken advantage of, etc. etc.



> I fail to see why that would be unique to ISFPs. Also, I would be careful to think of Fi doms as acting on "emotions" as much as they rationalize through feeling. Not quite the same imo.


Because of Se? All SP types are characterized by impulsiveness. Se is constant calling for action and longing for change. "Do it first, think trough later". Stimuli appears suddenly and exerts increasing pressure, energy, which is released by action. For STs their Se is subjugated by logical Ti, ESFPs have Se-Te loops with relatively strong Te. While ISFP's Te is the weakest function, childlike and quite inflexible. Therefore ISFP's Se has the biggest impact of 'unpredictability' and impulsiveness without deeper consideration. Tertiary Ni also adds surprising element to already unstable Fi-Se combo as it suddenly pops in, gives hunches, conclusions that hard to explain to others or even to understand himself. Dom Nis probably feel this function smoother, as constant flow of intuition, but for tert. it has more jerky nature.
I agree with rationalization through feeling. Right, there is also logic of emotions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

blue_moon said:


> Disagree. Our function stack is our wiring for our perceiving and expression. This placing of function (what function and in what order) determines certain features. For sure you can give me an example of bullying ISFP and sissy ENTJ. But when looking at population as a whole, it is not hard to observe certain common characterisctics for each type separately. For exampl. Te & Fe are pushy, asserted functions so it is less likely Fe/Te dom to be insecure or taken advantage of, etc. etc.


That's not what Je is at its core. Anyone can exhibit any kind of trait or characteristic. What matters is how it is being rationalized. Then you are getting at cognition. Anything else would just be general psychology. 



> Because of Se? All SP types are characterized by impulsiveness. Se is constant calling for action and longing for change. "Do it first, think trough later".


No, not quite. Se is about taking in the totality of the sensory environment as it is in this moment. Doesn't indicate impulsiveness at all. 



> Stimuli appears suddenly and exerts increasing pressure, energy, which is released by action.


What matters isn't the behavior but the why. A lot of people can take sudden action for a wide number of reasons. What matters is why they do so.



> For STs their Se is subjugated by logical Ti, ESFPs have Se-Te loops with relatively strong Te. While ISFP's Te is the weakest function, childlike and quite inflexible. Therefore ISFP's Se has the biggest impact of 'unpredictability' and impulsiveness without deeper consideration. Tertiary Ni also adds surprising element to already unstable Fi-Se combo as it suddenly pops in, gives hunches, conclusions that hard to explain to others or even to understand himself. Dom Nis probably feel this function smoother, as constant flow of intuition, but for tert. it has more jerky nature.


It's not so much that it's difficult to explain but it's the quality of it that is really off in tertiary Ni types. It's often very crude, simple and childish but they present it as if it's the greatest revelation to ever have been thought of because they didn't think of it sooner. 



> I agree with rationalization through feeling. Right, there is also logic of emotions.


Not emotions but _ethics_.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> It's not sticky at all actually once you understand the reasons and causes for these differences. Essentially MBTI and Socionics describe different "sides" of the same type. If you describe the same object, such as a car for example, from interior vs. from its exterior then of course your descriptive profiles will sound different even though you have been describing the exact same car. That's the conundrum of MBTI and Socionics profiles when it comes to introverted types such as INFP and ISFJ. It takes some time to understand this, but once you get it it all becomes very clear.


You explain your stance on the matter well. What you don't explain well is how apparent contradictions is accounted for. Notice the last sentence in this ISFP description. How is this in any way shape or form compatible with socionics black sensing? 



FreeBeer said:


> *ISFP is this:*
> 
> ISFP
> Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what’s going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others.
> ...


Basically not due to the last sentence. We can compare it to an ESI description, "ESIs take their responsibilities seriously and tend to perform them diligently and with care. *They expect the same of others and make that clear.* They can be very demanding co-workers and bosses, but not more than they are of themselves." (link)

So basically, ESI's tries to not be a bitch about it, but does force their values on others. I want to know how you, @cyamitide explain why this contradiction can exist when these two descriptions are supposed to explain the same thing.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Inguz said:


> Basically not due to the last sentence. We can compare it to an ESI description, "ESIs take their responsibilities seriously and tend to perform them diligently and with care. *They expect the same of others and make that clear.* They can be very demanding co-workers and bosses, but not more than they are of themselves." (link)
> 
> So basically, ESI's tries to not be a bitch about it, but does force their values on others. I want to know how you, @cyamitide explain why this contradiction can exist when these two descriptions are supposed to explain the same thing.


o.o well yeah, but I do that as well....>__> you haven't seen my condescending asshole posts on the ENFP forums yet lol...I think its a Fi over Fe thing. Some stuff needs to be said and done regardless of it hurting other people's feelings.

o.o in general I rarely hold back especially if I consider that there is some benefit in it.

As I said on the Fi vs Fe thread....my Fe is my Fi's bitch.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Inguz said:


> You explain your stance on the matter well. What you don't explain well is how apparent contradictions is accounted for. Notice the last sentence in this ISFP description. How is this in any way shape or form compatible with socionics black sensing?
> 
> _ISFP is this:_
> 
> ...


Extroverted sensing isn't the only defining function of the type. The description that you have quoted is talking about the Fi/Ni side of the type, which endues the ESI with kindness, softness, interpersonal sensitivity, loyalty and commitment, and dislike of conflict as something that would upset the harmony of the relationships (Fi), as well as a calmer "let's be patient, wait and see, instead of charging ahead" approach to life (Ni). The Fi and Se functions essentially have different priorities, and depending on who has written these profiles they will either talk about the Fi/Ni "soft, kind, patient" side of the type, or the Se/Te "impetuous, aggressive, expansionist" side. It's important to realize that _all of these traits_ are part of the type, and not to pick out one part over the other and define the type on its basis. The functions of the type are part of functional dichotomies, while the definition of a dichotomy is parts that are _mutually exclusive_. What this means is that each type intrinsically composed of contradictory traits (that human nature is essentially contradictory, comprised of the opposites that are united and at the same time opposed to each other). And all these arguments based on picking out a couple of contradictory parts from profiles are done by people who haven't developed a concerted, holistic vision of the types.


Stratievskaya by the way has talked about conflicting priorities of Se and Fi in the FiSe type in one of her activity relations articles. She's alludes to the fact that when Fi takes hold of the ESI, the ESI becomes sensitive to the values and feelings of other people, becomes withdrawn (quiet) and disinclined to commit "abuse" over their values, and so on, but when Se takes over it is then that the ESI behaves an expansionist and an "aggressor". Seemingly contradictory values, but once you take into account that types are inherently made up of contradictory values, and unify the opposites in your mind, then this stops being an issue.

*Once activated, the creative volitional sensing of ESI attains pronounced expansiveness in nature and thereby dampens ESI's introverted ethical function. For the duration of this, ESI's priorities in leading and creative functions become transposed. At this point, Dreiser almost completely forgets about relational ethics: about having tact, modesty, and restraint. (*Activity Relations ISFj and INTp by Stratiyevskaya*)*


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

@cyamitide I think you missed the part of the MBTI quote that says "do not", not "may not".


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> @cyamitide I think you missed the part of the MBTI quote that says "do not", not "may not".


No, I however think you sorely misunderstood cyamitide's point. Why should they spend time writing such a lengthy post to you and you just essentially ignore everything they were trying to say? They even addressed this themelves:



> these arguments based on picking out a couple of contradictory parts from profiles are done by people who haven't developed *a concerted, holistic vision* of the types


This is exactly what you are doing. How difficult is it to understand that once you start to nitpick and pigeonhole a specific trait of being exclusive or unique to a type because it of all fucking things, said so in a type description nevertheless, it does not mean everyone of said type must be that particular way?

To quote:



> What this means is that each type intrinsically composed of contradictory traits (that human nature is essentially contradictory, comprised of the opposites that are united and at the same time opposed to each other)


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

-Ephemeral- said:


> No, I however think you sorely misunderstood cyamitide's point. Why should they spend time writing such a lengthy post to you and you just essentially ignore everything they were trying to say? They even addressed this themelves:


 @cyamitide argues that it is entirely possible for ESI to be portrayed in a softer light (where they try to remain tactful and restricted) or a harsher light. I agree this far. What he misses is that the MBTI quote says "do not", which is a very definite way of putting it. If I say that 2+2 do not equal 5, then that still is the case a moment later or from a different perspective. Earlier I argued that ESI's generally try to be nice, but that does not become "do not" in some other perspective.

Lengthy post or not, it does not tackle the "do not".



-Ephemeral- said:


> This is exactly what you are doing. How difficult is it to understand that once you start to nitpick and pigeonhole a specific trait of being exclusive or unique to a type because it of all fucking things, said so in a type description nevertheless, it does not mean everyone of said type must be that particular way?
> 
> To quote:


The discrepancies goes further than a few nitpicks. Another is that MBTI often correlates sensing with facts, while in socionics it is more correlated with Te. There are problems with this holistic view as I have not to date seen any attempts to reconcile the differences across the different typologies. The only "argument" that I see is from the people advocating the holistic view is to accuse separatists of be ignorant or not enlightened. That is more in line with ad hominem than an actual argument. No real effort has to my knowledge been presented to expand the argument about different perspectives to explain these inconsistencies across the systems.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> @cyamitide argues that it is entirely possible for ESI to be portrayed in a softer light (where they try to remain tactful and restricted) or a harsher light. I agree this far. What he misses is that the MBTI quote says "do not", which is a very definite way of putting it.


And I still fail to see the problem unless you take the "do not" at absolute face value which you even agree yourself on is not entirely applicable. 



> If I say that 2+2 do not equal 5, then that still is the case a moment later or from a different perspective. Earlier I argued that ESI's generally try to be nice, but that does not become "do not" in some other perspective.


It's clearly a matter of perspective.



> Lengthy post or not, it does not tackle the "do not".


cyamitide did not write that to you in order to get hung up on a "do not". It's about looking in a much wider scope than a particular phrasing or pigeonholing a particular trait. 



> The discrepancies goes further than a few nitpicks. Another is that MBTI often correlates sensing with facts, while in socionics it is more correlated with Te.


Yes, but it would be more fair to say that facts exist in a different plane all together outside of strict cognition as any type can recall facts though as a whole, would best be attributed to extroversion. See, if I see a chair in my room and I say "I see a chair", is that Te or Se? It's a fact the chair exists. 



> There are problems with this holistic view as I have not to date seen any attempts to reconcile the differences across the different typologies.


There have been plenty but perhaps those attempts are not your cup of tea which is frankly not my problem then. 



> The only "argument" that I see is from the people advocating the holistic view is to accuse separatists of be ignorant or not enlightened.


As if that argument doesn't go the other way around.



> That is more in line with ad hominem than an actual argument. No real effort has to my knowledge been presented to expand the argument about different perspectives to explain these inconsistencies across the systems.


But there have been. @athenian200 made a thread some time ago discussing the discrepancies and she actually conceded that there were none and that the type systems are largely congruent with each other. It's about getting a "gist" from each description rather than taking them at face value. If you collect enough "gists" you'll formulate an idea where you can look beyond a specific phrasing and still understand what is being referred to. 

I fail to see how this is particularly difficult to do as a task.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

-Ephemeral- said:


> And I still fail to see the problem unless you take the "do not" at absolute face value which you even agree yourself on is not entirely applicable.


Where did I agree to that?



-Ephemeral- said:


> It's clearly a matter of perspective.


Repeating a mantra doesn't increase it's level of truth.



-Ephemeral- said:


> cyamitide did not write that to you in order to get hung up on a "do not". It's about looking in a much wider scope than a particular phrasing or pigeonholing a particular trait.


It is things that I and presumably others too would like to have explained. If they are the same thing, then go ahead and explain the functions in a way that is applicable to both systems and fits with each. It should be possible if it is true.



-Ephemeral- said:


> Yes, but it would be more fair to say that facts exist in a different plane all together outside of strict cognition as any type can recall facts though as a whole, would best be attributed to extroversion. See, if I see a chair in my room and I say "I see a chair", is that Te or Se? It's a fact the chair exists.


It's called having eyes.



-Ephemeral- said:


> There have been plenty but perhaps those attempts are not your cup of tea which is frankly not my problem then.


The perspective argument is only appealing if I ignore blatant discrepancies. 



-Ephemeral- said:


> As if that argument doesn't go the other way around.


No? Disagreeing on a theoretical basis and claiming that there is not enough support for a holist theory without more elaborate arguments is not anywhere personal attacks.



-Ephemeral- said:


> But there have been. @_athenian200_ made a thread some time ago discussing the discrepancies and she actually conceded that there were none and that the type systems are largely congruent with each other. It's about getting a "gist" from each description rather than taking them at face value. If you collect enough "gists" you'll formulate an idea where you can look beyond a specific phrasing and still understand what is being referred to.
> 
> I fail to see how this is particularly difficult to do as a task.


The "gist" I get from, for example, ISTJ is that it has more similarities to LSI than SLI. The opposite is also true for ISTP. This is a worthwhile read and more elaborate than what I have the patience to cook up right here: User:Admin/Comparison of MBTI and Socionics - Wikisocion


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> Where did I agree to that?


You agreed on that types can be contradictory in their behavior.



> Repeating a mantra doesn't increase it's level of truth.


You clearly didn't understand what I was suggesting in the first place. It's about perception of reality, of how we can see things from more than one angle. You type as an Ni type, use that damn Ni of yours. This is all about seeing new facets from one singular idea. 



> It is things that I and presumably others too would like to have explained. If they are the same thing, then go ahead and explain the functions in a way that is applicable to both systems and fits with each. It should be possible if it is true.


Myup, says so in Psychological Types. 



> It's called having eyes.


No. Answer my question. Is the factual claim, "there's a chair in this room" Te, Se or something else? 



> The perspective argument is only appealing if I ignore blatant discrepancies.


Then please show me the discrepancies because I don't see them. 



> No? Disagreeing on a theoretical basis and claiming that there is not enough support for a holist theory without more elaborate arguments is not anywhere personal attacks.


Fucking pointless. So according to you, when you say that there isn't sufficient evidence to support a claim and that people who think otherwise are clearly not understanding the real issue it is not an ad hominem, but when people who claim the opposite of what you claim it is ad hominem? Makes no fucking sense. Seems pretty contradictory to me. 



> The "gist" I get from, for example, ISTJ is that it has more similarities to LSI than SLI. The opposite is also true for ISTP. This is a worthwhile read and more elaborate than what I have the patience to cook up right here: User:Admin/Comparison of MBTI and Socionics - Wikisocion


Then you clearly don't get the same "gist" I am getting.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

-Ephemeral- said:


> You agreed on that types can be contradictory in their behavior.


No, I only agreed that ESI can be portrayed in a softer or a harsher light.



-Ephemeral- said:


> You clearly didn't understand what I was suggesting in the first place. It's about perception of reality, of how we can see things from more than one angle. You type as an Ni type, use that damn Ni of yours. This is all about seeing new facets from one singular idea.


Say that we make an analogy to religion. Christianity and Islam both have historical background in Judaism. This far everyone should agree. It would be foolish however to treat these three religions the same as there is not only a lot of similarities, but also differences that sets them apart. The origin is not relevant so to speak when you talk about how one of the religions is practiced. Note that we are not only talking about their respective God, but the three branches each as a whole.



-Ephemeral- said:


> Myup, says so in Psychological Types.


A new one. It's no secret that both builds on Jung. If you could pull it off to make a function descriptions that pleases both the MBTI and Socionics crowd I'd be flabbergasted.



-Ephemeral- said:


> No. Answer my question. Is the factual claim, "there's a chair in this room" Te, Se or something else?


It could be anything depending on which process you want to interpret it from. (For example, does this object fulfill the necessary and sufficient criteria to be called a chair?)



-Ephemeral- said:


> Then please show me the discrepancies because I don't see them.


I gave you a link. You should read it. On top of that we have had our discussion about Si relating to the past. This is supported by MBTI, but in socionics the aspect of time is Ni.



-Ephemeral- said:


> Fucking pointless. So according to you, when you say that there isn't sufficient evidence to support a claim and that people who think otherwise are clearly not understanding the real issue it is not an ad hominem, but when people who claim the opposite of what you claim it is ad hominem? Makes no fucking sense. Seems pretty contradictory to me.


"You have a weak basis for this assumption, both systems are separate entities developed in different parts of the world independent from each other." vs. "They are the same, you just haven't developed a holistic vision of it."

First attacks the theoretical assumptions made, the second uses rhetoric to give the impression of an actual argument but attacks a persons lack of insight. 



-Ephemeral- said:


> Then you clearly don't get the same "gist" I am getting.


That is correct. This is also why I suggest that you elaborate your arguments for a holistic view.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> No, I only agreed that ESI can be portrayed in a softer or a harsher light.


But soft and harsh are contradictions. 



> Say that we make an analogy to religion. Christianity and Islam both have historical background in Judaism. This far everyone should agree. It would be foolish however to treat these three religions the same as there is not only a lot of similarities, but also differences that sets them apart. The origin is not relevant so to speak when you talk about how one of the religions is practiced. Note that we are not only talking about their respective God, but the three branches each as a whole.


What? Both are clearly Abrahamic. 



> A new one. It's no secret that both builds on Jung. If you could pull it off to make a function descriptions that pleases both the MBTI and Socionics crowd I'd be flabbergasted.


Hence it's not about the descriptions but it's the idea the descriptions are meant to convey that matter. 



> It could be anything depending on which process you want to interpret it from. (For example, does this object fulfill the necessary and sufficient criteria to be called a chair?)


That's thinking because you are clearly trying to define the object. 



> I gave you a link. You should read it. On top of that we have had our discussion about Si relating to the past. This is supported by MBTI, but in socionics the aspect of time is Ni.


I skimmed. I found it largely irrelevant and more supportive of your view rather than really providing any strong arguments as to why your view would be correct or superior to mine. 



> "You have a weak basis for this assumption, both systems are separate entities developed in different parts of the world independent from each other." vs. "They are the same, you just haven't developed a holistic vision of it."


No, that's you creating a strawman. How about: "They are the same because holistically speaking, they are based off the same foundation drawing upon the cognitive theory originally proposed by Jung."



> First attacks the theoretical assumptions made, the second uses rhetoric to give the impression of an actual argument but attacks a persons lack of insight.


Nitpick. 



> That is correct. This is also why I suggest that you elaborate your arguments for a holistic view.


Pointless.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Hence it's not about the descriptions but it's the idea the descriptions are meant to convey that matter.


ISFP: Express themselves through art because Fi is hard to articulate.
SEI: Express themselves through art (Si) because it can convey what they feel internally. 



-Ephemeral- said:


> I skimmed. I found it largely irrelevant and more supportive of your view rather than really providing any strong arguments as to why your view would be correct or superior to mine.


Reading is good for you. Try to put down some effort into understanding the opponents side and I'm sure you'll fare better in arguments.



-Ephemeral- said:


> No, that's you creating a strawman. How about: "They are the same because holistically speaking, they are based off the same foundation drawing upon the cognitive theory originally proposed by Jung."


"Islam and Christianity is the same because holistically speaking, they are based off the same foundation drawing upon the holy books originally belonging to Judaism."?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Inguz said:


> @_cyamitide_ I think you missed the part of the MBTI quote that says "do not", not "may not".


I didn't miss the "don't". I simply explained to you how within a single type there is a combination of both "do" and "don't", "may" and "may not" i.e. that that any type combines opposing qualities because dichotomies are inherent to jungian typology. And by your follow-up response I see that you still didn't get this part.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> hopefully you guys will see some sense.
> 
> 
> On the rest of the forums there are all these "ENTP's" who go on and on about how much they hate ISFJ's and could never date one *even though the ENTP's dual is the ISFp in socionics...*
> ...


You know, it's also possible that socionics sucks as a predictor of romantic compatibility.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> hopefully you guys will see some sense.
> 
> 
> On the rest of the forums there are all these "ENTP's" who go on and on about how much they hate ISFJ's and could never date one *even though the ENTP's dual is the ISFp in socionics...*
> ...


where from do you people take such preposterous information? have you even taken a glance at the official socionics site and what it has to say about mbti conversion or are you listening to the fairies in your head? How to convert MBTI® type to Socionics type


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> I didn't miss the "don't". I simply explained to you how within a single type there is a combination of both "do" and "don't", "may" and "may not" i.e. that that any type combines opposing qualities because dichotomies are inherent to jungian typology. And by your follow-up response I see that you still didn't get this part.


That argument works both ways, though. If types are their own opposites like that then you have no guarantee that you are describing the same personality with both systems. The only guarantee that you get is your ideal idea about it.

To explain better, what is there to say that seemingly similar behavior between ISFP-SEI is not because they often are correlated? If the ISFP can internalize the sensation of art well through high attentiveness to Se, what can contradict the fact that in model A the SEI does have a strong Se but does not place priority on it in favour of the internalized sensation that is Si?

There are big similarities between the two systems, for example an ESTP-EII would be unimaginable to me because the complete lack of similarities between the types. It doesn't automatically lead to the far-fetched conclusion about system identities without, in practice, the baseless assumptions about the identicality of the systems.

What I claim is that it is circular reasoning to ascribe an equation mark between the two since this only supported by the idea that they are practically the same. My opinion is that sometimes a direct translation work exceptionally well, but other times it does not. I find this discrepancy reasonable due to the fact that there is not only a difference in creators, but also in inspiration and culture.

In practice the lazy yet cheerful hedonist is ISFP-SEI.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

Zamyatin said:


> You know, it's also possible that socionics sucks as a predictor of romantic compatibility.


It does, indeed, and BIG time! Can't believe so many people swallow it blindly.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

The Force said:


> where from do you people take such preposterous information? have you even taken a glance at the official socionics site and what it has to say about mbti conversion or are you listening to the fairies in your head? How to convert MBTI® type to Socionics type


This person is not currently here, but I'd like to correct the misinformation in this post. That is NOT the "official socionics site". It is ONE socionics site, and one that pushes ideas (easy system conversion, VI through facial features) that other socionists do not endorse in the least.


----------



## intp_gurl (Mar 8, 2014)

Miya said:


> It does, indeed, and BIG time! Can't believe so many people swallow it blindly.



uh, I don't swallow it blindly. I live it, so it has helped me. I always thought I needed a mind mate. Someone to match my thinking, and wits. Someone as smart or smarter than me.

how wrong I was. Now I seek soulmates. Those who fulfill my mental, emotional, and physical needs. So maybe its blind for you because you havent lived it. Maybe you haven't found the right dual. But when you do, then come back and let me know. I would love to hear what it was like.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

Miya said:


> It does, indeed, and BIG time! Can't believe so many people swallow it blindly.


Nah, socionics works very well. If you think it doesn't then that just means you know nothing about it. Anyway, you're more than likely in for some nasty surprises if you don't accept Socionics and wonder why some just rub you the wrong way or why some people seem likeable at first but with whom you run into one nasty surprise after another with the person the more you get to know them.


----------



## Kizuna (Jul 30, 2011)

HFGE said:


> Nah, socionics works very well. If you think it doesn't then that just means you know nothing about it. Anyway, you're more than likely in for some nasty surprises if you don't accept Socionics and wonder why some just rub you the wrong way or why some people seem likeable at first but with whom you run into one nasty surprise after another with the person the more you get to know them.


I of course am no expert on socionics, but I've read, heard and seen enough of it to absorb what is useful and discard what is not. Unfortunately, quite good information is mixed with fluff, and there are as many mistypes or "I don't know my last letter"-people in that community as in MBTI. As IEI, I have enough experience to say, at least for myself, that the relationship-charts of socionics are flawed at best. If you accept the authority of a XYZ who said your best match is Peter, then you're free to date Peter, but I'd rather listen to my own heart and mind.

SLE is, for example, one of the types I just do NOT get along with, short term as well as long term. We grow impatient with each other at some point, because there are similarities in preferences, but something is always missing. I get along fabulously with iNtuition-dominant types, though, there is a lasting ease of communication and mutual understanding. Well, you can believe whatever socionics tells you, good for you if it works for you (provided you or your partner are not mistyped and falsely believe to be socionics "duals" when in fact you're not).


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

if you think this problem is bad with socionics, you should swing by the Enneagram forum lmao! :laughing:



UglierBetty said:


> hopefully you guys will see some sense.
> On the rest of the forums there are all these "ENTP's" who go on and on about how much they hate ISFJ's and could never date one *even though the ENTP's dual is the ISFp in socionics...*
> I suggest that SF's and NT's are generally duals/good partners, and I get told by """"""""NT's""""""""" that they would 'kill themselves if they ever had to date an SF.'
> I guess it's a good way to weed out people who are faking their type.


eh, type pairings are hardly an exact science (as I'm sure you're aware), but one basic rule of thumb I have noticed is that Fi/Te users work better with other Fi/Te users and Fe/Ti users work best with other Fe/Ti users.


----------



## intp_gurl (Mar 8, 2014)

HFGE said:


> Nah, socionics works very well. If you think it doesn't then that just means you know nothing about it. Anyway, you're more than likely in for some nasty surprises if you don't accept Socionics and wonder why some just rub you the wrong way or why some people seem likeable at first but with whom you run into one nasty surprise after another with the person the more you get to know them.



I agree. When I cross the quadra, a simple hello can become a misunderstanding. Its crazy.

socionics has helped me narrow down who is more likely to understand me as a friendship or intimate level. Otherwise I would need to meet thousands of people before finding one who understands me. Why put myself through all that.

I think NTs make the mistake of trying to find a mindmate. We value intelligence, and think that's what we need. But you soon find out, your smart enough. What you need is a soul mate, and duals provide that. Not to say a dual can't match an NT's intelligence.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

intp_gurl said:


> I agree. When I cross the quadra, a simple hello can become a misunderstanding. Its crazy.
> 
> socionics has helped me narrow down who is more likely to understand me as a friendship or intimate level. Otherwise I would need to meet thousands of people before finding one who understands me. Why put myself through all that.
> 
> I think NTs make the mistake of trying to find a mindmate. We value intelligence, and think that's what we need. But you soon find out, your smart enough. What you need is a soul mate, and duals provide that. Not to say a dual can't match an NT's intelligence.


Mind mate! = intelligence.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

Miya said:


> I of course am no expert on socionics, but I've read, heard and seen enough of it to absorb what is useful and discard what is not. Unfortunately, quite good information is mixed with fluff, and there are as many mistypes or "I don't know my last letter"-people in that community as in MBTI. As IEI, I have enough experience to say, at least for myself, that the relationship-charts of socionics are flawed at best. If you accept the authority of a XYZ who said your best match is Peter, then you're free to date Peter, but I'd rather listen to my own heart and mind.
> 
> SLE is, for example, one of the types I just do NOT get along with, short term as well as long term. We grow impatient with each other at some point, because there are similarities in preferences, but something is always missing. I get along fabulously with iNtuition-dominant types, though, there is a lasting ease of communication and mutual understanding. Well, you can believe whatever socionics tells you, good for you if it works for you (provided you or your partner are not mistyped and falsely believe to be socionics "duals" when in fact you're not).


Well, you're free to believe whatever it is you'd like. I think there are more than enough successful dual pairs to say it's not just the forer effect or a mistaken case of confirmation bias. If you like intution dominants (ILE, IEI, ILI, IEE) then go for it! You sound like a young person so you probably want to date around a lot so do what you want. Just know that Socionics does say your dual is the SLE though. 



intp_gurl said:


> I agree. When I cross the quadra, a simple hello can become a misunderstanding. Its crazy.
> 
> socionics has helped me narrow down who is more likely to understand me as a friendship or intimate level. Otherwise I would need to meet thousands of people before finding one who understands me. Why put myself through all that.
> 
> I think NTs make the mistake of trying to find a mindmate. We value intelligence, and think that's what we need. But you soon find out, your smart enough. What you need is a soul mate, and duals provide that. Not to say a dual can't match an NT's intelligence.


That's all well and good but what _is_ your type? :wink:


----------



## intp_gurl (Mar 8, 2014)

My personal experience with quadras


Within the quadra
me: good morning, how are you
quadra: hi, I'm ok. How are you
me: good thanks, and how is..... the conversation continues smoothly, smiles happens, etc

outside the quadra
me: good morning, how are you
outside: good.......pause......so.......how are you
me: good thanks, and......pause....so, how is.....
outside: so.....
It ends up akward at best, sometimes a verbal struggle, sometimes labeling the conversation weird .

socionics has helped me. If I look for online friends or partners, when I have misunderstandings, then I know I have crossed the quadra. So, I just keep it moving. When there is ease, I know im in the quadra or adjacent so to speak. But for intimate relationships, I seek my dual. I know specifically what I'm looking for.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

I don't really buy the idea of not being able to get along with your opposite quadra. It's all dependent on trust and if you can't trust people within your own quadra then there's going to be a breakdown in communication despite being within your own quadra. Even if you're supposed duals. Lying and deception can certainly ruin a duality pair so that's something to keep in mind. If you meet your dual and end up failing in forming a successful relationship. Similarly if people from "incompatible" quadras (Gamma and Alpha; Delta and Beta) can learn to trust one another despite the differences can co-operate quite well.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

HFGE said:


> Nah, socionics works very well. If you think it doesn't then that just means you know nothing about it. Anyway, you're more than likely in for some nasty surprises if you don't accept Socionics and wonder why some just rub you the wrong way or why some people seem likeable at first but with whom you run into one nasty surprise after another with the person the more you get to know them.


Not that I necessarily disagree about the socionics relations myself, but that kind of argument rubs me the wrong way. "If you disagree with something it's just because you don't get it," etc.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

Kink said:


> Not that I necessarily disagree about the socionics relations myself, but that kind of argument rubs me the wrong way. "If you disagree with something it's just because you don't get it," etc.


There's a difference between undue dismissiveness and skepticism. One is unwarrented while the other is healthy behavior.

At any rate, I think Miya didn't want to feel trapped by socionics and wanted to be free to see whoever she wants which is perfectly fine. I was just reminding her that her dual is the SLE.


----------



## intp_gurl (Mar 8, 2014)

I have friends from different quadras, but when I get an off response, or weird conversation I am sure the person is from a different quadra. At least that's my experience. 

For my intimate relationships, I seach for duals exclusively. Because I have experienced it. Socionics has helped me narrow down my search. With duals I also take in instinctual stacking, and goals, commonalities, and similar purpose. I know what I am looking for based on experience. Before knowing about socionics, and experiencing duality, I would be searching through countless people. 

Thankfully socionics works for me, otherwise I would be going through individuals not understanding why simple hellos result in confrontation. Some people end up with conflictors, not knowing anything about socionics only to have difficult relationships. 

Socionics works for me. I know who is more likely to understand me.


----------

