# Socionics says chase ESFP not ENFP



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Duality - Wikisocion



> *In romance*
> 
> Romantic relationships affect the most intimate areas of a person's functioning, so dualization in this area will have the greatest affect on a person's life.The early stages of a dual romance may be similar to any other relationship where infatuation is present, but what is different is the psychological distance between the partners. The naturally close distance causes partners to relax internally and be more spontaneous than they would be in most other relationships. Duals quickly recognize that their partner is not overly concerned with their weaknesses and is not going to criticize sore spots. In romance dual partners quickly move from stereotyped romantic behavior to what is actually natural and sincere for them. Partners may find that they "discover themselves" through the dual relationship. By seeking out their true desires and natural tendencies and ignoring societal expectations, they actually enrich the relationship and gladden their partner. If a person has not enjoyed dual relations before, experiencing them for the first time will likely be a transformational experience. In the initial stage of a dual relationship, partners often "drop out" of society for a period of time to devote energy to the new relationship and the exciting process of self-discovery.
> 
> ...


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

At least you included that disclaimer. I have seen truly absurd opinions on dual relationships in the past - like "9 out of 10 will be a good match" etc., and people looking to date specifically people of their dual type. I think its spiritually harmful when they impose such limitations all based on whats a very incomplete and limited theory in the first place. 

I saw one forum member say how "you will know when you dual is near by the pattern of their speech" and then went on to vomit some tripe about how its practically a magical connection when you meet a dual. 

Personally, my own anecdotes don't support the theory much in the first place - but results will vary due to the way so many want to cling to these models to give them some structure in an unpredictable world. I'd like to see experiments where people who change their type go from thinking their first dual is so perfect, to having the same opinion of the new dual. I can think of one example of this already, where someone was hard core rationalizing it. But, thats most of what typology is - rationalizing how it fits.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

$post = "http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/113292-socionics-says-chase-esfp-not-enfp.html"
$bad = "socionics"

foreach ($words in $post){
$content = Get-Content $post
if ($content -match $bad){
Write-Host "gtfo"
}Else{
Write-Host "Excellent."
}
}


----------



## Fallen Nocturne (May 13, 2012)

I don't know a great deal about Socionics and how it differs from MBTI, but I'm not buying this. I only think that the whole duality thing works to a certain extent. If there isn't much common ground between two types and their dominant methods of communication is basically the others inferior functions, I can't see a relationship between them working out spectacularly. On a hypothetical level, I just cant see them understanding each other at all. At least with an ENFP, Intuition dominates, so the way we take in information and basically how we understand the world is pretty similar.

I'm going with Promethea on this one. There's no magical connection going on here, and the idea of limiting yourself to it is harmful and it's kind of stupid, too. I'm sure there are dual relationships that work and some that don't, as with virtually any other combination of types, but I find the rationalisation to this supposed perfect pairing to be pretty flawed.

I'm not just bitter about a relationship with an ESFP that didn't go well. Absolutely not.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Fallen Nocturne said:


> I don't know a great deal about Socionics and how it differs from MBTI, but I'm not buying this. I only think that the whole duality thing works to a certain extent. If there isn't much common ground between two types and their dominant methods of communication is basically the others inferior functions, I can't see a relationship between them working out spectacularly. On a hypothetical level, I just cant see them understanding each other at all. At least with an ENFP, Intuition dominates, so the way we take in information and basically how we understand the world is pretty similar.
> 
> I'm going with Promethea on this one. There's no magical connection going on here, and the idea of limiting yourself to it is harmful and it's kind of stupid, too. I'm sure there are dual relationships that work and some that don't, as with virtually any other combination of types, but I find the rationalisation to this supposed perfect pairing to be pretty flawed.
> 
> I'm not just bitter about a relationship with an ESFP that didn't go well. Absolutely not.


You are also limiting yourself if you decide to believe in ENFPs, that is another message I'm trying to get people to see here. Confirmation bias, you probably like the ENFP model because you've began to believe in it. Though personally I'm more inclined to think that people are people first, their functions are just tools their psyche, there have little meaning on the actual personality. 

Although I find your outlook on the inferior and tertiary functions some what reminiscent of "defensive learning"; it seems like a fear of enhancing that part of your personality, you could rip the exclusive benefits associated with them. At this point I'm conquering Fi and trying to enhance Se since I need to be successful with it. 



> *Si vs. Ni: a focus on one's environment and how it's affecting one's physical state vs. a focus on a situation's development over time and other underlying meanings
> 
> Se vs. Ne: active acquisition, control, and organization of visible territory and objects vs. active search for and development of invisible potential and emerging situations
> 
> ...


----------



## Wizardry (Nov 13, 2011)

Socionics can shut the fuck up. :tongue:


----------



## Fallen Nocturne (May 13, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> You are also limiting yourself if you decide to believe in ENFPs, that is another message I'm trying to get people to see here. Confirmation bias, you probably like the ENFP model because you've began to believe in it. However with me personally I'm more inclined to think that people are people first, their functions are just tools their psyche, there have little meaning on the actual personality.
> 
> Although I find your outlook on the inferior and tertiary functions some what reminiscent of "defensive learning"; it seems like a fear of enhancing that part of your personality, you could rip the exclusive benefits associated with them. At this point I'm conquering Fi and trying to enhance Se since I need to be successful with it.


I don't really "believe" in ENFP's either, I can just see the reasoning behind it to be a bit more than the duality pairing. Although I'd say certain types will tend to be more attracted to each other, people are attracted to each other's personalities, which as you quite rightly say isn't necessarily dependant on type... Though I wouldn't say they have "little meaning", bit of a stretch in my opinion.

Personally I think I have a fairly well developed Se. Whether you can use and develop your inferior functions is based on the individual, but it's called the inferior function for a reason: It's typically the weakest. Of course you can work on it, but it should hypothetically be the least understood (not the word I'm looking for, but hopefully I'm making sense) among most INTJ's. If it's the weakest for an INTJ, then they'd probably be less likely to 'get' someone whose dominant function is Se, no? Some INTJ's have a sharper Se than others, which is why it's a flawed system to work with and why I don't really like to rely on it, but it still sort of works.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Fallen Nocturne said:


> Personally I think I have a fairly well developed Se. Whether you can use and develop your inferior functions is based on the individual, but it's called the inferior function for a reason: It's typically the weakest. Of course you can work on it, but it should hypothetically be the least understood (not the word I'm looking for, but hopefully I'm making sense) among most INTJ's. If it's the weakest for an INTJ, then they'd probably be less likely to 'get' someone whose dominant function is Se, no? Some INTJ's have a sharper Se than others, which is why it's a flawed system to work with and why I don't really like to rely on it, but it still sort of works.


That is the defensive learning I'm talking about which is like a confirmation bias of some kind, plus the shared opinion as fact, "most ITNJs think..." justifying it. I hate to quote DaveSuperPowers here but it seems as if that life forces you to develop your lower functions. Apparently Jung agreed with this too when he said you "change over time" (type never changes but greater awareness and proficient use seems emerges). I'm personally quite surprised that there are several ISTJs who are proficient with their Ne (they mistakenly test as NTs, but studying the functions makes them realise otherwise).

Out of interest are you under the impression that sensing implies stupidity, or believing that there are no benefits to it of what so ever you could learn; I don't need to actually learn to do so? Most NTs around seem to fall to the sensors stereotype, thinking that the function is stupid thus the people who have it and taking pride in their feeling deficiencies.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm waiting for the day that some twat comes along and writes that INTJs perfect match is ESFJ, ENFJ and ISTP with Capricorn sun and Gemini moon. Maybe then people will start to understand that relationships usually arise from being in the same location and having similar interests.




Boolean11 said:


> Most NTs around seem to fall to the sensors stereotype and taking pride in their feeling deficiencies.


They do? I've seen quite a few INTJs get a little perturbed over the common stereotype of being a soulless git.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

Socionics says a lot of things.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

In all honesty ExFPs have never really been my cup of tea. ExTPs are where it's at in my opinion.

But any relationship between any two types should be great if both parties are willing to make it work. Also the ratios between members of two dual types can be a bit of an issue since some types are more rare than others. So promoting relationships based solely on duality is kind of problematic.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> In all honesty ExFPs have never really been my cup of tea. ExTPs are where it's at in my opinion.
> 
> But any relationship between any two types should be great if both parties are willing to make it work. Also the ratios between members of two dual types can be a bit of an issue since some types are more rare than others. So promoting relationships based solely on duality is kind of problematic.


Apparently if barriers are put the opposing ("id and super ego"), then no communication could even emerge. I'm guessing you saw the barriers isn't it?


----------



## quadrivium (Nov 6, 2011)

There is a concept called "being an individual" and it doesn't necessarily align itself with generalities. There are many INTJs that are not attracted to ENFPs or ESFPs, maybe even more than not.


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

Personally, I run away from all extroverts.


----------



## Codger (Aug 7, 2010)

Codger says 'kiss my fat hairy ass'. Just as valid.


----------



## animalcule (Jun 28, 2010)

My sisters are ESFPs. Love em to death, they are adorable and they can be great fun, but that's everything I don't want in a relationship (especially when dysfunctionality and depression is involved!). ES guys are just not my thing.

INTP, INFP, ENTP, ENFP. That's where it's at for this INTJ (lady).


----------



## Shades of Gray (Jan 13, 2012)

I agree basically with the theory that socionics "duals" interact easily, but I disagree that ease of interaction is the most important thing in forming a relationship. From what I've seen, duals, while they easily understand one another, are almost always bad matches because they have too little in common. 

For what it's worth, I'm supposedly an LIE (ENTj) in socionics, so my dual is an ESI (ISFj).


----------



## NaughyChimp (Jun 20, 2011)

ChanceyRose said:


> Personally, I run away from all extroverts.


 And we chase you, shouting, "Please loooove me!"


----------



## Hawkx (May 29, 2011)

I say choose whoever you like to be around.

Let not thyself be guided by, but rather guided by himself.


----------



## Gatito Bandito (Aug 30, 2012)

animalcule said:


> INTP, INFP, ENTP, ENFP. That's where it's at for this INTJ (lady).


Not sure I've ever known an INTP.. (need an E, anyway)

INFPs are too draining on me

ENTPs are my 2nd choice, but..
ENFPs definitely provide the "F" I need so much! :kitteh:


P.S. Socionics = lame...


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

Cetanu said:


> Nope.


:tongue:

>++++++++++
[>++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>+++>+++++++>+++>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++++++++>++++>++++++++++++>+++>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++++>+++>++++++>++++><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-]
>->+>++++>++>+++>++>>----->>>++>->---->++>--->>+>->++>->+>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.


----------



## chickydoda (Feb 12, 2010)

I didn't read that post because it was too long, but if it helps, I am an ENFP with Meyer Briggs, and seem to be described as an ESFP with Socionics...weird. Maybe that explains your confusion?


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> *Socionics says chase ESFP not ENFP*


And what is your type? You cannot just switch J/P to get your socionics type. It's an internet rumour that has spread in these forums like a virus, and people just keep repeating it, unfortunately. If you are INTJ in MBTI you could be LII or ILI or maybe something else. It depends on how you have typed yourself in MBTI. But your socionics type is in fact your real jungian type. It's often the same as how you type yourself in MBTI, but not always. Don't rely on tests.

Read socionics.us and en.socionics.ru. Socionics is fundamental in understanding some very basic chemistry and reactions between people. And yes - duality is the best type relation.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Sleepy said:


> And what is your type? You cannot just switch J/P to get your socionics type. It's an internet rumour that has spread in these forums like a virus, and people just keep repeating it, unfortunately. If you are INTJ in MBTI you could be LII or ILI or maybe something else. It depends on how you have typed yourself in MBTI. But your socionics type is in fact your real jungian type. It's often the same as how you type yourself in MBTI, but not always. Don't rely on tests.
> 
> Read socionics.us and en.socionics.ru. Socionics is fundamental in understanding some very basic chemistry and reactions between people. And yes - duality is the best type relation.


What do you mean by "MBTI" type? By function, or just by dichotomy?

It makes little sense to me to entirely flip the attitude of the dominant function, from judging to perceiving, only on the basis of a new functional system - especially one in which the dominant function of MBTI and the leading function of socionics have a lot in common. You may be right in the sense that some people's MBTI type as described by the general paragraphs on type may change, but if you typed yourself by cognitive function in both MBTI and socionics, as you should in both, there is little argument against simply switching the last letter, because the function-based type is independent from the description-based type, and the function type is more precise across a larger group of people.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Sleepy said:


> And what is your type? You cannot just switch J/P to get your socionics type. It's an internet rumour that has spread in these forums like a virus, and people just keep repeating it, unfortunately. If you are INTJ in MBTI you could be LII or ILI or maybe something else. It depends on how you have typed yourself in MBTI. But your socionics type is in fact your real jungian type. It's often the same as how you type yourself in MBTI, but not always. Don't rely on tests.
> 
> Read socionics.us and en.socionics.ru. Socionics is fundamental in understanding some very basic chemistry and reactions between people. And yes - duality is the best type relation.


I read about all the types and I fit INTp the best, this is actually looking at the cognitive functions. I actually know that my intution is influenced by the subjective whilst my thinking is objective, orientated towards the accuracy of the external world unlike the cohesion of logic that comes with subjective, introverted thinking.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> _By the terminology you're using though, it definitely sounds like you're going by socionics standards rather than MBTI. And such a discussion on an MBTI forum doesn't really make sense, because the two systems don't classify types the same way. Similar, not the same.
> _
> Please lets not make this a semantics debate. It's boring and unproductive as far as discussions go


Confusing two distinct systems is not purely a semantics thing. And it's not unproductive to call out someone on this kind of practice.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Confusing two distinct systems is not purely a semantics thing. And it's not unproductive to call out someone on this kind of practice.


The only confusion is the one that exists in your head. As you can see the rest of people in this thread are doing just fine.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> The only confusion is the one that exists in your head. As you can see the rest of people in this thread are doing just fine.


Well, as for "rest of people", not true, as there was clearly at least one person who disagreed and who you replied to with the "argument" of "semantics".

I just recall you tend to mix up MBTI types with socionics types and I disagree that mixing up two systems is a semantics thing only.

That has nothing to do with confusion in my head or whatever. Also, not a good or relevant argument here at all.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Well, as for "rest of people", not true, as there was clearly at least one person who disagreed and who you replied to as "semantics".
> 
> I just recall you tend to mix up MBTI types with socionics types and I disagree that mixing up two systems is a semantics thing only.
> 
> That has nothing to do with confusion in my head or whatever. Also, not a good or relevant argument here at all.


Imo MBTI and Socionics are trying to describe the same concepts and the very same set of 16 types, just using different wording. There is sufficient evidence in favor of this. Take a look at this, for example, people who have been studying MBTI are re-discovering the very same intertype relationships that have been documented in socionics for decades:

RoSoDude re-discovered socionics rings of benefit within MBTI
thehigher has re-discovered supervision relationships within MBTI

Not to mention all the posts I've seen on this forum where somebody would notice that people get attracted to others who have their tertiary function as dominant or auxiliary, which is also what Socionics claims.

If socionics and MBTI were intrinsically different, and no translation between the two systems was possible, this wouldn't be occurring. People wouldn't be stumbling upon the very same relationships within MBTI as in Socionics. Yet they are. Could this mean that these typologies are presenting the very same grid of 16 types but treating them a bit differently? I think so


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> Imo MBTI and Socionics are trying to describe the same concepts and the very same set of 16 types, just using different wording. There is sufficient evidence in favor of this. Take a look at this, for example, people who have been studying MBTI are re-discovering the very same intertype relationships that have been documented in socionics for decades:
> 
> RoSoDude re-discovered socionics rings of benefit within MBTI
> thehigher has re-discovered supervision relationships within MBTI
> ...


I just brought that up in another thread, if you go to that thread you'll see my thoughts on it. By the way I don't care what anyone says, there is a correlation, they both derive from JCF, they are just two different interpretations of the same thing. One is one perspective while the other is a different perspective, both perspectives being "right", and giving a piece of the truth. It is as simple of a J/P switch when you get down to the fundamentals of both systems, which is JCF, and how each system interprets JCF using their own model. This is not about descriptions, this is purely about cognitive functions.

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/114900-socionic-vs-mbtis-functions-succinct.html


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

LXPilot said:


> What do you mean by "MBTI" type? By function, or just by dichotomy?
> 
> It makes little sense to me to entirely flip the attitude of the dominant function, from judging to perceiving, only on the basis of a new functional system - especially one in which the dominant function of MBTI and the leading function of socionics have a lot in common. You may be right in the sense that some people's MBTI type as described by the general paragraphs on type may change, but if you typed yourself by cognitive function in both MBTI and socionics, as you should in both, there is little argument against simply switching the last letter, because the function-based type is independent from the description-based type, and the function type is more precise across a larger group of people.


It's very confusing to start comparing these systems. It can seem like they're compatible but once you dig into it it's really messy. MBTI is simply not accurate. Especially for introverts the functions are a mess. MBTI made the mistake of assuming that J/P is about extraversion/introversion of that function. In socionics the whole structure of intertype relationships proves imo that socionics found the right analysis of Jungian types. It's also a practical matter of how well people actually are able to type themselves in MBTI. I have seen for example that many people type themselves in MBTI according to social extraversion/introversion instead of typological.

The bottom line is this, sorry for sounding arrogant: What you type yourself as in MBTI doesn't matter. What matters is socionics type, because here you get the whole model A structure of the psyche, and the web of intertype relationships, your quadra etc. It's easier to check what your type really is, through comparing the model with real life experience. Not just to assume a type, but to really know it. And the real life implications can be huge, for example the possibility of dualization and what it brings to a person. The reason MBTI is considered so much is because the better alternative is unknown. Socioncs never spread to the west, but maybe it will some day.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Sleepy said:


> It's very confusing to start comparing these systems. It can seem like they're compatible but once you dig into it it's really messy. MBTI is simply not accurate. Especially for introverts the functions are a mess. MBTI made the mistake of assuming that J/P is about extraversion/introversion of that function. In socionics the whole structure of intertype relationships proves imo that socionics found the right analysis of Jungian types. It's also a practical matter of how well people actually are able to type themselves in MBTI. I have seen for example that many people type themselves in MBTI according to social extraversion/introversion instead of typological.
> 
> The bottom line is this, sorry for sounding arrogant: What you type yourself as in MBTI doesn't matter. What matters is socionics type, because here you get the whole model A structure of the psyche, and the web of intertype relationships, your quadra etc. It's easier to check what your type really is, through comparing the model with real life experience. Not just to assume a type, but to really know it. And the real life implications can be huge, for example the possibility of dualization and what it brings to a person. The reason MBTI is considered so much is because the better alternative is unknown. Socioncs never spread to the west, but maybe it will some day.


Duality isn't the answer to everything, some types your conflicting type may turn out to be your best partner if you share the actual important fundamentals responsible for a successful relationship.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Imo MBTI and Socionics are trying to describe the same concepts and the very same set of 16 types, just using different wording. There is sufficient evidence in favor of this. Take a look at this, for example, people who have been studying MBTI are re-discovering the very same intertype relationships that have been documented in socionics for decades:
> 
> RoSoDude re-discovered socionics rings of benefit within MBTI
> thehigher has re-discovered supervision relationships within MBTI
> ...


First weak point in your argument; Why are there exactly 16 types? Why not more or less? Can you give me a foundation for this beyond the idea that there must be 4 functions and arrangement of them ends up in 16 types?

Then, the idea of no translation between the systems is being possible does not equal the idea of partial correlations and thus partial translations existing. I'm not saying that the latter can't be true, that would actually quite go against logic. Yes, I do agree there is a correlation. What I don't agree with is 1) mixing up different system rules but I explained that already somewhere 2) taking this correlation as a very significant one and use it as such without even first attempting to ascertain in the first place how strong the correlation is. 

Checking for that would have to be in an empirical way of course, even just a consistent standard of applying the system on typing people would be more than nothing to help this matter.




Radiant Truth said:


> ...and giving a piece of the truth.


Part of your post is addressed in the above lines. I'm curious if, as ILE, or just as you yourself without any type label, you consider empiricism important in terms of the truth.




Sleepy said:


> The bottom line is this, sorry for sounding arrogant: What you type yourself as in MBTI doesn't matter. What matters is socionics type, because here you get the whole model A structure of the psyche, and the web of intertype relationships, your quadra etc. It's easier to check what your type really is, through comparing the model with real life experience. Not just to assume a type, but to really know it. And the real life implications can be huge, for example the possibility of dualization and what it brings to a person. The reason MBTI is considered so much is because the better alternative is unknown. Socioncs never spread to the west, but maybe it will some day.


The problem is that it's not easier to type yourself correctly in socionics. It might even be harder to do trying to ascertain how from all that chaos of various correlations a type emerges. I think it'd be much better to establish a consistent standard for typing, with clear guidelines; decide what is relevant, what is redundant, etc.




Boolean11 said:


> Duality isn't the answer to everything, some types your conflicting type may turn out to be your best partner if you share the actual important fundamentals responsible for a successful relationship.


Yeah, duality is a very small part of the answer IMO.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Fallen Nocturne said:


> I don't know a great deal about Socionics and how it differs from MBTI, but I'm not buying this. I only think that the whole duality thing works to a certain extent. If there isn't much common ground between two types and their dominant methods of communication is basically the others inferior functions, I can't see a relationship between them working out spectacularly. On a hypothetical level, I just cant see them understanding each other at all. At least with an ENFP, Intuition dominates, so the way we take in information and basically how we understand the world is pretty similar.
> 
> I'm going with Promethea on this one. There's no magical connection going on here, and the idea of limiting yourself to it is harmful and it's kind of stupid, too. I'm sure there are dual relationships that work and some that don't, as with virtually any other combination of types, but I find the rationalisation to this supposed perfect pairing to be pretty flawed.
> 
> I'm not just bitter about a relationship with an ESFP that didn't go well. Absolutely not.


There could be if the ESFP is unbelievably hot.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> \Why are there exactly 16 types? Why not more or less?


Well same question applies to MBTI: why does MBTI have 16 types?

The way I've seen it being explained is that MBTI and Socionics 16 types are representations of the prioritization of different areas of the brain. Since you have 2 hemispheres that can be divided into 4 regions their permutations yield a total of 16 possible combinations. 

There is a brief mention of this in this interview with Lenore Thomson.

Wikipedia article on socionics also has some interesting bits: Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Since Socionics is mathematically Base-16 and also a psychology of personality in the same way as the typology of Carl Jung andMyers-Briggs, it shares a similar degree of mathematical consistency, while enduring the same serious shortcomings in the experimental justification of these theories.Taking this, Socionics also differs from other typologies in that it also includes a complementary Base-16 relationship set, with the intent of penning to paper the key social dynamic traits between grouped combinations of socionic types. Therefore, socionics could be considered to be within the realm of the science of social dynamics, intended to describe social behavior according to mathematical applications of Base-16, group theory, set logic and reduction of the Gulenko-Jungian notation for socionics types to hexadecimal andBase-2 bitwise operation. While this mathematical approach is strictly theoretical and has been criticized for lack of empirical testing in this socionics article systems theory has been the tool of socionics theorist, such as Gregory Reinin to derive theorical dichotomieswithin socionics theory. In 1985 Aušra Augustinavičiūtė acknowledged the mathematical theories of Reinin and wrote a book titled "The Theory of Reinin's Traits" to describe the mathematical processes of socionics theory. Mathematical methods have been a standard part of socionics theory since this time.
> Studies of Elena Udalova show that at least three of Reinin's Traits are distinguishable and can be used for detection of a sociotype. Those include: statics/dynamics (having appropriate functions in their mental track), questims/declatims (tending to rise questions or declare opinions), and aristocrats/democrats (understanding inequality or equality of people). Not all names of Reinin's Traits reflect their actual meaning very well, but they were defined historically and now seem to be fixed.
> The methodology of deriving socionic relationships from two socionic types is similar to the enumeration of 16 possible booleanWebster.cs.ucr.edu, Algebraic functions from two binary output and input variable types, with truth tables and during construction oflogic gates in electronics.[SUP][33]


[/SUP]


----------



## GraphicallyAlex (Jul 23, 2010)

~nevermind~


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Well same question applies to MBTI: why does MBTI have 16 types?
> 
> The way I've seen it being explained is that MBTI and Socionics 16 types are representations of the prioritization of different areas of the brain. Since you have 2 hemispheres that can be divided into 4 regions their permutations yield a total of 16 possible combinations.
> 
> There is a brief mention of this in this interview with Lenore Thomson.


Oh noes, the old brain quadrant theory. This is so false that it hurts.

1) Functions cannot be attributed to only one hemisphere in any unambigous way, there's been a thread discussing how many ways (several ways!) functions can be arranged to fit right vs left hemispheres. Also, there is absolutely no empirical proof about this idea. Actually, only for the opposite... see below.

2) The brain doesn't operate by simply activating one big region and use that. There are complex connections across various areas between a lot of subsystems and different kinds of feedback loops and whatnot. Lateralization itself is not black-white.

Actually, read wikipedia on lateralization as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Oh noes, the old brain quadrant theory. This is so false that it hurts.
> 
> 1) Functions cannot be attributed to only one hemisphere in any unambigous way, there's been a thread discussing how many ways (several ways!) functions can be arranged to fit right vs left hemispheres. Also, there is absolutely no empirical proof about this idea. Actually, only for the opposite... see below.


The arguments in that thread haven't conclusively disproven the validity of this hypothesis. 



> 2) The brain doesn't operate by simply activating one big region and use that. There are complex connections across various areas between a lot of subsystems and different kinds of feedback loops and whatnot. Lateralization itself is not black-white.


Well duh! All brain regions are working simultaneously together. You're re-stating the obvious. Even if you don't attribute it to brain hemispheres, fact remains that the brain needs to perceive and orient itself in 4-dimensional space. That's just the basics of physics of the universe we exist in for you.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Oh noes, the old brain quadrant theory. This is so false that it hurts.


But it makes sense so it must be some truth in it :tongue:



> 1) Functions cannot be attributed to only one hemisphere in any unambigous way, there's been a thread discussing how many ways (several ways!) functions can be arranged to fit right vs left hemispheres. Also, there is absolutely no empirical proof about this idea. Actually, only for the opposite... see below.


The functions are not attributed to only one hemisphere, if you had read Lenore Thomsons Book you would know how they meassured it and came to such conclusions. Specific functions consumed more glucose in a brain region than in the other so all parts of the brain worked on it.



Fallen Nocturne said:


> I'm going with Promethea on this one. There's no magical connection going on here, and the idea of limiting yourself to it is harmful and it's kind of stupid, too. I'm sure there are dual relationships that work and some that don't, as with virtually any other combination of types, but I find the rationalisation to this supposed perfect pairing to be pretty flawed.


I´ve read somewhere that the chance of success of duality is only 20%.


----------



## Fallen Nocturne (May 13, 2012)

muhahaha said:


> There could be if the ESFP is unbelievably hot.


As there could if any type was unbelievably hot, and that's the point. Deciding to fall in love with someone because socionics says it's a good idea is not the best move to make. Especially when the rationale behind it doesn't seem that secure in the first place, and that's before you even attempt to translate socionics to MBTI.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> The arguments in that thread haven't conclusively disproven the validity of this hypothesis.


I mentioned it to show that it is way too easy to generate makeshift theories all day without hard evidence.




> Well duh! All brain regions are working simultaneously together. You're re-stating the obvious.


No. I didn't say all brain regions work together all the time. You are clearly clueless about this topic. How about you go study this area (brain's workings on a neurological and neurocognitive level) in more detail and more deeply before you make such statements as that brain quadrants theory?




> Even if you don't attribute it to brain hemispheres, fact remains that the brain needs to perceive and orient itself in 4-dimensional space. That's just the basics of physics of the universe we exist in for you.


Fact? How is it a *fact*? A theory != fact.

What is this "brain orienting itself" phrase supposed to mean?

What principle of physics is this? Would you be able to show a link about such physics principles that is not a socionics site?




Zero11 said:


> But it makes sense so it must be some truth in it


Not necessarily. Human logic without checking evidence often enough can be really really fallacious.




> The functions are not attributed to only one hemisphere, if you had read Lenore Thomsons Book you would know how they meassured it and came to such conclusions. Specific functions consumed more glucose in a brain region than in the other so all parts of the brain worked on it.


This idea on brain quadrants as presented in this thread is no good. I recall some document from Lenore Thompson or Beebe that said that this brain quadrants thing is just something tentative. Even in its tentative form though, it's not exactly how things are.

As for the glucose experiment, let me rephrase it in a better way: specific *tasks* consumed more glucose in some brain region. That distinction between functions and tasks is important. Also, I don't understand how you made the conclusion from that, when you said "so all parts of the brain worked on it"...?



> I´ve read somewhere that the chance of success of duality is only 20%.


20%? Um, do you mean 20% of duality relationships work out?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> I mentioned it to show that it is way too easy to generate makeshift theories all day without hard evidence.


It's also easy to put forward bogus claims about how those theories were disproven when they actually haven't.



> No. I didn't say all brain regions work together all the time. You are clearly clueless about this topic. How about you go study this area (brain's workings on a neurological and neurocognitive level) in more detail and more deeply before you make such statements as that brain quadrants theory?


This research has been done already by people with MDs and PhDs and they haven't found any contradictions yet to invalidate the existence of 16 MBTI or Socionic types, or we would have known about it. You're clearly just bluffing, pretending that you know something on the subject. If you do, provide a detailed schematic that would support your claim that brain neurology conflicts with existence of 16 types.



> Fact? How is it a *fact*? A theory != fact.


Err, it's not a theory that the space we're capable of perceiving has 4-dimensions: 3 dimensions of space plus time which in combination yield spacetime within the context of which you existence transpires. 4 dimensions + 2 orientations (extraversion/introversion) and you have 16 types.



> What is this "brain orienting itself" phrase supposed to mean?


It means that your brain has a way of perceiving and making sense of our 4D reality that allows you to survive and reproduce.



> What principle of physics is this? Would you be able to show a link about such physics principles that is not a socionics site?


Let me google that for you


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Not necessarily. Human logic without checking evidence often enough can be really really fallacious.


Show me a better theory that fits the reality and I will discard the old with joy. But that´s not the case you simply deny the Brain hemispheres as illogical without logical reason :tongue:




> This idea on brain quadrants as presented in this thread is no good. I recall some document from Lenore Thompson or Beebe that said that this brain quadrants thing is just something tentative. Even in its tentative form though, it's not exactly how things are.


So how are things exactly? If it were exactly it wouldn´t be complex enough.



> That distinction between functions and tasks is important.


Why?



> Also, I don't understand how you made the conclusion from that, when you said "so all parts of the brain worked on it"...?


Not important anymore  I got you a bit wrong.




> 20%? Um, do you mean 20% of duality relationships work out?


Exactly


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> It's also easy to put forward bogus claims about how those theories were disproven when they actually haven't.


Well it makes them very unlikely to be true based on results of brain research so far. This is why I suggested you read more about the topic. Basically the main idea here is that organization if the brain is not as simple as that, it's really complex.




> This research has been done already by people with MDs and PhDs and they haven't found any contradictions yet to invalidate the existence of 16 MBTI or Socionic types, or we would have known about it. You're clearly just bluffing, pretending that you know something on the subject. If you do, provide a detailed schematic that would support your claim that brain neurology conflicts with existence of 16 types.


I provided you a wikipedia link, have you read it? It will support my claim about how there are no such brain quadrant thingies.

Let's be clear here, what I'm refuting here is the brain quadrants theory, not the 16 types, I didn't say there can't be another basis for them. 




> Err, it's not a theory that the space we're capable of perceiving has 4-dimensions: 3 dimensions of space plus time which in combination yield spacetime within the context of which you existence transpires. 4 dimensions + 2 orientations (extraversion/introversion) and you have 16 types.


Well, there are theories on more dimensions of the world 

Also, I wouldn't relate 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time this arbitrarily to functions just because there is 4 of both of dimensions and of function dichotomies. I can actually sum up the function dichotomies as 3 factors: I/E, N/S, T/F.




> It means that your brain has a way of perceiving and making sense of our 4D reality that allows you to survive and reproduce.


That would be more complex than a few dichotomies.




> Let me google that for you


Very funny...




Zero11 said:


> Show me a better theory that fits the reality and I will discard the old with joy. But that´s not the case you simply deny the Brain hemispheres as illogical without logical reason


See above my reply to the other guy.




> So how are things exactly? If it were exactly it wouldn´t be complex enough.


What do you mean by it not being complex enough?




> Why?


If you define functions in terms of observably performed tasks, that can muddle up things, we all know we shouldn't equate functions to such concrete things.




> Exactly


But some context so I can compare this 20% number to it? E.g. How many percents of other relationships work out according to this study?


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

INTJ the DC said:


> Interesting. Now we just need more data from the others. I'm especially curious about those who were pretty anti-socionics.


I used to be anti-socionics until I met my ISTJ/ISTp boyfriend. Now I'm sort of believing in the whole duality/opposing functions idea. It's definitely the best relationship I've ever had. And while I've dated INTJs and most of my closest guy friends are INTJs (and most of my friends in general are intuitives), for some reason our relationship just works. From the start, something just clicked and made sense.

As for romantic styles, I'm the infantile and he's the caregiver. The weird thing is, not knowing about these specific romantic styles before now, I often joke that sometimes I feel like our relationship mimics a parent-child relationship, he makes me act very childlike, where I spend considerable time acting silly and trying to drag my ISTJ into whatever crazy antics I've started -- he also calms me down by doing things to make me laugh and relax. It's not a bad thing (when I told my therapist this she thought I meant it to be negative), but now I see where that sense comes from.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> I used to be anti-socionics until I met my ISTJ/ISTp boyfriend. Now I'm sort of believing in the whole duality/opposing functions idea. It's definitely the best relationship I've ever had. And while I've dated INTJs and most of my closest guy friends are INTJs (and most of my friends in general are intuitives), for some reason our relationship just works. From the start, something just clicked and made sense.
> 
> As for romantic styles, I'm the infantile and he's the caregiver. The weird thing is, not knowing about these specific romantic styles before now, I often joke that sometimes I feel like our relationship mimics a parent-child relationship, he makes me act very childlike, where I spend considerable time acting silly and trying to drag my ISTJ into whatever crazy antics I've started -- he also calms me down by doing things to make me laugh and relax. It's not a bad thing (when I told my therapist this she thought I meant it to be negative), but now I see where that sense comes from.


That's cool... yeah regardless of what anyone believes, it seems like the infantile romantic style is consistent with the ENFP person I know and with myself. When I first came to the forum and thought I was an INTJ I did identify with the victim romantic style because I was broken up with, but not over, my ex and felt like someone who is attractive and aggressive would likely be the only person to get with me. 

However later I realized that I'm not as passive when it comes to romantic styles and I sort of play around with people to get responses if I like them and overly aggressive people can kinda weird me out (had an encounter with an ESFP to help me realize that).

When I was with my ENFP friend I had a bit of an attraction to her but she was a friend from school and I had already talked to her at length about my break up so I felt like I friend-zoned her a bit. She was in a long distance relationship so she was in the process of breaking that off. People would comment about our flirty chemistry but I think that happened because we were both sort of playing a game and we liked each other because it was fun. She said to me a couple times, as she laughed "we totally wouldn't work out because we're so opposite" but I always saw it as she wanted me to say something flirty back, but I never did... instead I'd just laugh it off and be like: yeah lol probably not. I felt it was a game because she only said that when were together in a kind of intimate setting. In public she'd like "NoOo we're just friends" when someone state that we should date.

I think if I was a victim romantically I'd be totally unsure if she liked me and maybe even doubt it based on what she said and view her actions as proof that she didn't like me. But I viewed it as more of a game and it made me kinda like her more if that makes sense, because she was playful.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

INTJ the DC said:


> When I was with my ENFP friend I had a bit of an attraction to her but she was a friend from school and I had already talked to her at length about my break up so I felt like I friend-zoned her a bit. She was in a long distance relationship so she was in the process of breaking that off. People would comment about our flirty chemistry but I think that happened because we were both sort of playing a game and we liked each other because it was fun. *She said to me a couple times, as she laughed "we totally wouldn't work out because we're so opposite" but I always saw it as she wanted me to say something flirty back*, but I never did... instead I'd just laugh it off and be like: yeah lol probably not. I felt it was a game because she only said that when were together in a kind of intimate setting. In public she'd like "NoOo we're just friends" when someone state that we should date.
> 
> I think if I was a victim romantically I'd be totally unsure if she liked me and maybe even doubt it based on what she said and view her actions as proof that she didn't like me. But I viewed it as more of a game and it made me kinda like her more if that makes sense, because she was playful.


This is totally something I would do/have done!!! I teased about being with one of my best guy friends (an INTJ), but realistically we were long distance so it wouldn't have worked anyways. It's definitely a way to subtly test the waters, sarcasm is a great way for ENFPs to gauge reactions when they don't want to be the ones to really put themselves out there to get hurt.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> This is totally something I would do/have done!!! I teased about being with one of my best guy friends (an INTJ), but realistically we were long distance so it wouldn't have worked anyways. It's definitely a way to subtly test the waters, sarcasm is a great way for ENFPs to gauge reactions when they don't want to be the ones to really put themselves out there to get hurt.


Haha good to know I probably read it right.. not that I had too many doubts, like I said we were together a lot. We slept in the same bed various times  lol ... if I was in her room in the morning as she got dressed she would be like "k don't look" (that means peak if you want to be bad... cause it was said in a flirty way not: if you look I'll kill you). Plus she mentioned that she liked when a guy got aggressive with her after she sufficiently got them worked up. Like I said I was going through a breakup which is why I didn't make a move, she probably thought I was clueless though haha. But it was fun, if it wasn't we wouldn't have hung out.. that much I'm sure about.


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

Mhm, interesting topic of course.

*
PLEASE UNDERSTAND ME*

_"...INTJ is attracted to the freewheeling, spontaneous, fun-loving "entertainer" ESFP. But the INTJ requires that mating meet certain criteria, else it is not undertaken. So the INTJ doesn't often go through with what is begun by natural attraction."_ *p. 72*

_"This type of mating, however, is so infrequent as to be of mere academic interest (the INTJ is a mere 1 percent of the population and, furthermore, rarely comes in contact with ESFP)."_ *p. 76 

*


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

muhahaha said:


> There could be if the ESFP is unbelievably hot.


But if the INTJ is unbelievably un-hot..?? :shocked: :frustrating: Hehehee!! Poor ESFP. :kitteh: :wink:


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

This thread is all about: "If an INTJ_ 'wants'_ to have an ESFP or an ENFP". Haha! Funny! roud:

Anyone thought that perhaps it may be better this way - and maybe more _'realistic way'_ too: "Would an ESFP or an ENFP choose someone like INTJ?" :kitteh:


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Fridays said:


> But if the INTJ is unbelievably un-hot..?? :shocked: :frustrating: Hehehee!! Poor ESFP. :kitteh: :wink:


Is looks important to ESFPs? not generalizing just wondering.. i have a INTJ friend whose extremely attracted to a ESFP girl for shallow reasons though. It's probably infatuation if INTJ's are prone to this?


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Fridays said:


> This thread is all about: "If an INTJ_ 'wants'_ to have an ESFP or an ENFP". Haha! Funny! roud:
> 
> Anyone thought that perhaps it may be better this way - and maybe more _'realistic way'_ too: "Would an ESFP or an ENFP choose someone like INTJ?" :kitteh:


Because INTJ's pretty much run the interwebs.:laughing:


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Fridays said:


> This thread is all about: "If an INTJ_ 'wants'_ to have an ESFP or an ENFP". Haha! Funny! roud:
> 
> Anyone thought that perhaps it may be better this way - and maybe more _'realistic way'_ too: "Would an ESFP or an ENFP choose someone like INTJ?" :kitteh:


INTJs are supposedly special and better than everybody else, with high self confidence and narcissism. A superman vision and reasoning, apparently you are lucky if you become the object of focus.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

muhahaha said:


> True the ESFP girl my INTJ friend likes can't stand him it's quite sad really.


INTJs are suppose to be concious planning ahead to see whether something yield fruit or not. Is he self confidence and held together with some god complex towards his image?


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> INTJs are suppose to be concious planning ahead to see whether something yield fruit or not. Is he self confidence and held together with some god complex towards his image?


Oh wow yes he has a ego the size of the grand canyon. :laughing:


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> INTJs are suppose to be concious planning ahead to see whether something yield fruit or not. Is he self confidence and held together with some god complex towards his image?


Do INTJ's have flings then? or are they always serious about relationships? mabye it's not just a 'infatuation' after all.. :shocked:


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> INTJs are supposedly special and better than everybody else, with high self confidence and narcissism. A superman vision and reasoning, apparently you are lucky if you become the object of focus.


00000h I l000000ve y0u!!


:tongue: :laughing: :kitteh:


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

_(((ps. a top-secret: my husband is an intj, hihi! you know a "smart-guy".)))_


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

muhahaha said:


> Oh wow yes he has a ego the size of the grand canyon. :laughing:


Nooo, I think he is lovely!! roud:


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

muhahaha said:


> Do INTJ's have flings then? or are they always serious about relationships? mabye it's not just a 'infatuation' after all.. :shocked:


Flings would be only via an unhealthy addiction to "Se" attempting to experience the world, plus drug abuse can also be caused by the poor grasp of the same function too. But Ni likely favours long term relationships yet it is very picky at the same time so a lot of people have to be turned down


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

muhahaha said:


> Oh wow yes he has a ego the size of the grand canyon. :laughing:


Does the ESFP find him unattractive? visually?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@muhahaha

Since attraction isn't single sided, does he have some personality quirks she detests ?


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Does the ESFP find him unattractive? visually?


I don't know how to describe him without sounding gay, he isn't bad looking i'd go as far to say 8 out of 10 in looks. :tongue:


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> @_muhahaha_
> 
> Since attraction isn't single sided, does he have some personality quirks she detests ?


She is attracted to him physically now anyway but she doesn't like his sarcasm and all the nerdy things he is into.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Fridays said:


> Nooo, I think he is lovely!! roud:


Ohhhh no you are not the ESFP babe i'm referring to.


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

I am very happy with my INTJ husband. It is four years now.
It was really AWESOME when we met. I've never experienced anything like it - emotionally. And neither was he.
It was like socks spinning a few laps around your feet! I can not explain the feeling any better. lol.
He moved in with me very quickly. It was he who was the _"driving force"_. :tongue: And now we have a wonderful daughter. <3 (probably an introvert SJ. roud: ) ~ A real Princess! Ohmy! <3 :happy: She keeps an eye on us all the time so things get done *RIGHT*!


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Flings would be only via an unhealthy addiction to "Se" attempting to experience the world, plus drug abuse can also be caused by the poor grasp of the same function too. But Ni likely favours long term relationships yet it is very picky at the same time so a lot of people have to be turned down


There was me thinking he just wanted a friends with benefits relationship with her... hmm... :wink:


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

@Fridays I wasn't aware you were with a INTJ lol tbh i thought you detested them from your description of them. :angry:


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

muhahaha said:


> Ohhhh no you are not the ESFP babe i'm referring to.


_Ps. Actually I'm an INTJ who just advertise on "The Amazing type". Shhh... Do not tell anyone.._


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

She also doesn't like how he 'looks down'' on people and underestimates their intelligence.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Although he is a bit of a sap towards her she gets away with nearly everything simply because she is attractive and it's clear he doesn't seek 'friendship' from her either... :kitteh:


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

muhahaha said:


> She is attracted to him physically now anyway but she doesn't like his sarcasm and all the nerdy things he is into.


Wait people don't necessarily have to like the same things (hobbies) to connect, apparently according to socionics gamma types care more about the emotional substance as compared to merely connecting. But with his sarcasm, doesn't his Ni actually teach him that it doesn't work? Is the guy lacking seriously in the interpersonal skills department? Whats his most likely social roles amoungst these?

Has he become "mystical" and all knowing with regards to people skills and how to manipulate them. 


> *The computer geek* who lives in virtual reality and understands computers and Internet communication, but lacks experience in real-life social situations.
> *The mystic or spiritual philosopher* who is into all things mystical, esoteric, or eastern and makes little sense to the material-minded.
> *The encyclopedist or librarian type* who knows literally all there is to know about vast areas of knowledge, but does not use his or her knowledge at work.
> *The office introvert* who will not let a sentence mean anything but what was technically said, and doesn't care about how uncomfortable he is making his co-workers.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Wait people don't necessarily have to like the same things (hobbies) to connect, apparently according to socionics gamma types care more about the emotional substance as compared to merely connecting. But with his sarcasm, doesn't his Ni actually teach him that it doesn't work? Is the guy lacking seriously in the interpersonal skills department? Whats his most likely social roles amoungst these?
> 
> Has he become "mystical" and all knowing with regards to people skills and how to manipulate them.


Ohhh he isn't sarcastic with her, he's just sarcastic with other people and she just finds it annoying also the way they meet is a hilarious tale in itself. :laughing::laughing::laughing::wink:


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

*@Boolean11 **The encyclopedist or librarian type+ office introvert. *:shocked:


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

muhahaha said:


> She also doesn't like how he 'looks down'' on people and underestimates their intelligence.


That don't sound very nice at all.
If it had been my boyfriend, I would have had dog-training on him. :angry:

My INTJ are not like that at all. No "looking down" on anyone - like obvious. What he thinks is maybe another thing.
I feel that INTJs are often "shy".
I have seen 'that thing' (*looking down stuff*) in istj... I think.. (sorry istjs. but not all of you are like that of course..!)
I don't see intj ( IRL ) do that kind of stuffs.  Not those over 25-30 + that I know, at least.)

Maybe my husband was like that when he was younger..!!!!??????
*If so, then I have to kill him!! Gaaaaah! *

lol.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

@Fridays She isn't very nice either... in fact she's a attention seeker she suffers HPD too... she's also terribly obsessed with her ex which is the reason they met in the first place. :shocked:


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

Now I remember! Shit. Listen to this, it sounds like a lie I know but it is true! = My husband thanked me a week ago (hey! - *an* *INTJ thanked me *- do you understand!!!!? :shocked: :wink: ) that I have helped him to make "success" in his work. Because I got him to come down from his "utopian psychosis".
Now business is booming good.

But......
Where's my piece of the cake????


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Fridays said:


> That don't sound very nice at all.
> If it had been my boyfriend, I would have had dog-training on him. :angry:
> 
> My INTJ are not like that at all. No "looking down" on anyone - like obvious. What he thinks is maybe another thing.
> ...


Well mabye it just 'seems' like they are looking down on people when they are just being themselves i dunno.:frustrating:


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Fridays said:


> That don't sound very nice at all.
> If it had been my boyfriend, I would have had dog-training on him. :angry:
> 
> My INTJ are not like that at all. No "looking down" on anyone - like obvious. What he thinks is maybe another thing.
> ...


Doesn't "looking down" have to be done so in a none negative way? Well fundamentally some people are just shitheels out there and I've tried to look for the best in people but I know that my efforts are always in vain with some people. But people who do really dumb things and aren't prepared to listen or learn do really make my blood boil with regards to tolerance hence I will always keep them at a distance. However growing up I've learnt to cover the adverse side of my personality, dishing out honest criticisms and views since it makes the social world a bit more difficult when I need favours.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> These are really real people it seems, I think type is largely ineffective at this point. So the ESFP in question is shallow and boring?


She's shallow to a extent... and never boring! haha she's quite something, she just likes being in unhealthy relationships i guess for attention? again she's got HPD which she claims is because her ex dumped her.... which isn't exactly true because her mother also has it so it really can't be the reason, disorders don't just come out of the blue, i don't know she's overly dramatic about him leaving her.. she also committed suicide numerous times blackmailing him to come back or she'll die and he'll have a death on his conscience but he really doesn't care, he likes how he still has control over her even when they aren't together anymore.


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

muhahaha said:


> Basically the INTJ is willing to give it go... when most people wouldn't. For shallow reasons mostly but still he doesn't like gossip he would rather know what a person is like from getting to know them then listening to mindless assumptions even from close friends, basically how they met is he and her ex were worst enemies he basically wished death on him several times and even accused the INTJ of being gay... and being in love with the ESFP's ex.. then the ex went away for a few months and this is when he got to know the ESFP... as months passed the ESFP got dumped by her ex lol, and now the INTJ dumped his ex, so she is afraid he is like her ex and he will dump her when he get's bored. Also the INTJ's best friend who is a ENFJ suffered worse from the ex as he threatened to actually kill him, and instead the ex didn't accuse the ENFJ of being gay like he did the INTJ he accused the ENFJ of lusting after the ESFP when they were dating... But he really wasn't i doubt it. He probably did before he realised she was that psycho's girlfriend. The crazy ex only started threatening to kill him because he called the ESFP a whore because she wore revealing clothes and smoked and he of course didn't agree with this. The INFJ fits into all of this because she's quite uptight herself she didn't like the ESFP probably out of jealousy? I don't really like the his INFJ ex. We all knew their little relationship would end in tears because despite being a relationship he still treated her like a friend and they been dating for almost a year and not one kiss! haha
> 
> The ex = ENTJ
> The INTJ's ex = INFJ
> (just thought i'd add that if it's relevant lol.')


Oh what a mess!! :frustrating:


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Basically if the ESFP kept quiet about what the ENFJ had said about her this all wouldn't have happened (SIGH). :dry:


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

I think they would make a good couple... a odd couple but still she acts dumb but when they talk he actually listens to her and knows she isn't as retarded as she makes out to be, and she could help him be more understanding to people who don't like the things he is into and that doesn't in anyway make them 'irrelevant' and to admit he is wrong for once! also to realise that you shouldn't be so anal about how things are pronounced.! roud:


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


>


What a sweeeeeet story. ..oooh i cried here, hehe.. Oh Lord.. This was sooo sweet. <3


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Fridays said:


> *Boolean11 *No, not at all.. I actually "like" intj's (most INTJs I have met). I just do not like anyone beeing mean to anyone..
> And as I said before, I have not personally experienced that INTJ "look down" on people.
> 
> 
> Have you seen our videos on youtube..maybe? "ESFP & INTJ". If so, then you should know that I am not an "evil bastard" at all.


It seems as if you were american you would be extroverted like hell, prone to obnoxious behaviour. I think cultural differences may be the reason why you may not have seen the adverse INTJ behaviour.


----------



## Fridays (Jul 12, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> It seems as if you were american you would be extroverted like hell, prone to obnoxious behaviour. I think cultural differences may be the reason why you may not have seen the adverse INTJ behaviour.


Ah, Ok! I can't say anything about how it is for you guys. <3 

..maybe I'm soooo old, hehe! The ''Party-Princess-times'' are totally over.. :happy:


----------



## AmirCammok (Jan 18, 2012)

My Own Worst Judge said:


> Not sure what "duality" or "dual relationship" means, but if it means every letter of the type is different...very interesting.
> 
> I don't think I could ever work with an ISFJ. I would annoy the crap out of her, and in some ways disgust her. However, my dad, also an ENTP, married an ESFJ, and they are very happy. Of course, my mom is kind of softer than most ESFJ's, and isn't THAT strong of a sensor...so idk.


Dude. This shit actually works!! Its weird but Si users aren't repulsed by Ne users like other types are. I just tested the theory out on a group of friends and Si's actually find humor and being child-like... attractive . Of course there are other factors to determine one's attraction to another person, but as a general rule, Introverted Sensors (dominant and auxiliary) are NOT turned off by behaviors associated with being an Extroverted Intuitive. Just don't try to come off like an asshole to impress them. Its not required. ...Other types may find us a bit "young". ...


----------

