# Socionics vs. the Enneagram



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> How are you so sure that I misinterpreted it?


Because of your conclusions. If you hadn't misinterpreted it, you'd have responded by saying you're up to the challenge of discussing it and resolve all things that seem contradictions to me but not to you  Or by saying that you are not interested in discussing it, that's OK too, I did say I did not want to "nag" you with this topic.




> The person identifies with Ti but not Se. Alright, say I knew the person and agreed with their choice. They don't fit Se in socionics, so there's still Ne to consider. And I _can_ state something without backing it up; it's just unproductive to the dialogue.


You missed one little but important detail. I'll quote the relevant part for your convenience and highlight what you missed:

_"I *do* have a specific example who is ISTP in MBTI, ST in socionics and Ti-ego and does not fit Augusta's Se definition but *does fit the other, more basic Se definition*."
_
But to clarify it further, this ISTP does not fit socionics Ne definition. I would have thought it's rather basic that the Ne option was already checked out and was found invalid, but okay.

So then what does this example of this person show us?

(And the off topic one: everyone does have the ability to state whatever without backing it up but that does not give the ability to achieve anything with it.)




> They're valid possibilities for why the conversation is going nowhere, though I can understand if you feel insulted by them. Anyway, I did give my reasoning above; and what is or isn't a waste of space in this thread isn't really your call, though your feelings about what you do or do not wish to see from me in a conversation are noted.


A possibility is only valid if it has actual evidence for it being highly likely. My "feelings" about what I don't wish to see is just this, I prefer arguments that keep to constructive rules, one of which is to not start evaluating the other person's personal qualities that are irrelevant to the truth of the topic of the argument. This was one main reason for it getting nowhere. One of my pet peeves in arguments. Glad if you understand the point of that.




Kanerou said:


> An addition to the above: this conversation is quickly hurtling toward unproductive territory, and you did originally want out, but I pushed. It's probably better for us both to leave off here, as we're both annoying each other and will probably continue to do so.


I was only annoyed by what I mentioned above about not keeping inside the territory of the impersonal argument, anyway, yeah, I did already say that staying on topic of socionics (e.g. the ISTP example) would be the only constructive way to talk and right, I don't have the interest to go into anything else, we are on the same page with this.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> Because of your conclusions. If you hadn't misinterpreted it, you'd have responded by saying you're up to the challenge of discussing it and resolve all things that seem contradictions to me but not to you  Or by saying that you are not interested in discussing it, that's OK too, I did say I did not want to "nag" you with this topic.


So because I saw your statements as insulting (which is pretty damn understandable) rather than as a challenge or as a reason to not press the subject, I misinterpreted you.



> You missed one little but important detail. I'll quote the relevant part for your convenience and highlight what you missed:
> 
> _"I *do* have a specific example who is ISTP in MBTI, ST in socionics and Ti-ego and does not fit Augusta's Se definition but *does fit the other, more basic Se definition*."_


_

_You assume I missed it, but I did not. I addressed it within my reply.



> But to clarify it further, this ISTP does not fit socionics Ne definition. I would have thought it's rather basic that the Ne option was already checked out and was found invalid, but okay.


Of course it's not basic. All you said was "Ti ego and doesn't fit Augusta's description of Se". That leaves her definition of Ne to consider.



> So then what does this example of this person show us?


That he or she is having difficulty fitting into the theory. It happens. I don't know the person well enough to know why he or she may be having those problems.



> (And the off topic one: everyone does have the ability to state whatever without backing it up but that does not give the ability to achieve anything with it.)


'S not all that different from what I said.




> A possibility is only valid if it has actual evidence for it being highly likely. My "feelings" about what I don't wish to see is just this, I prefer arguments that keep to constructive rules, one of which is to not start evaluating the other person's personal qualities that are irrelevant to the truth of the topic of the argument. This was one main reason for it getting nowhere. One of my pet peeves in arguments. Glad if you understand the point of that.


But if you are seeking only one specific answer, or if you're not articulating the question clearly, that provides a roadblock to reaching mutual understanding if such is possible. Can't converse if we aren't on the same page.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> So because I saw your statements as insulting (which is pretty damn understandable) rather than as a challenge or as a reason to not press the subject, I misinterpreted you.


Yes.




> You assume I missed it, but I did not. I addressed it within my reply.


No, the Ne thing was not an addressing of that.




> Of course it's not basic. All you said was "Ti ego and doesn't fit Augusta's description of Se". That leaves her definition of Ne to consider.


I said more than what you quoted, and no, it didn't leave Ne to consider. 

I'm really not going to continue to argue something that's clearly laid out in previous posts. Read it, it's all there. I assume you are intelligent enough to figure it out.

When I said it's a basic thing, I meant that it's highly unlikely that Ne was not considered before. You would have to have an IQ of 50 to forget about considering that option.  

And with all the details I said about the person's functions, the Ne option is irrelevant so even if we assume the person has an IQ of 50 only, it doesn't matter anymore.




> That he or she is having difficulty fitting into the theory. It happens. I don't know the person well enough to know why he or she may be having those problems.


What it says is that the theory has issues.




> But if you are seeking only one specific answer, or if you're not articulating the question clearly, that provides a roadblock to reaching mutual understanding if such is possible. Can't converse if we aren't on the same page.


"But if", "What if", Ugh. Lol. Rules for a rational argument are pretty simple, just need to keep to those. And yes of course, attempting to articulate things as good as possible is important.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> No, the Ne thing was not an addressing of that.


I said the person didn't fit the socionic version of Se, so it was addressed.



> I said more than what you quoted, and no, it didn't leave Ne to consider.
> 
> I'm really not going to continue to argue something that's clearly laid out in previous posts. Read it, it's all there. I assume you are intelligent enough to figure it out.
> 
> ...


Ultimately, we are coming at this from very different angles, and we're going to continue to butt heads because our positions are irreconcilable.



> What it says is that the theory has issues.


That is an option. But see above.



> "But if", "What if", Ugh. Lol. Rules for a rational argument are pretty simple, just need to keep to those. And yes of course, attempting to articulate things as good as possible is important.


They're _your_ preferences for a rational argument, not universal rules.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I said the person didn't fit the socionic version of Se, so it was addressed.


*Looks with a fuzzy stare* 

Does. Not. Compute.

Seriously though, I originally started with saying person didn't fit augusta's version of Se, so if you said the same, then that was not an addressing of anything. I just do not feel anything was added this way. Addressing would mean that. But it's ok, obviously I didn't require you or anyone to add some special new insight. I do not have any such insight myself, beyond seeing that the theory has issues. (And why couldn't it have issues?)




> Ultimately, we are coming at this from very different angles, and we're going to continue to butt heads because our positions are irreconcilable.


No, no, I'm sure you are just skipping some detail somewhere, I'm sure you're more intelligent than that, this is really pretty basic, nothing to do with different angles. Let me try and sum it up really short. If person: Ti + Sensor + jungian version of Se (that some socionists use), Then person cannot be Ne user (not anymore Ne than augusta's Se), And there is a problem with the theory 

Hey and I'm ok with not continuing the talk, I just have too much patience sometimes with whatever I perceive as an obstacle. But yeah, if you're still not on the same page after what I explained above, we can agree to stop the discussion here 




> They're _your_ preferences for a rational argument, not universal rules.


Hey I'm not the first one to think of them!  See for example this fun diagram thingie: http://thoughtcatalogcom.files.word...squore-having-a-rational-discussion.jpg?w=584

Note that the Rule 1 mentioned here includes irrelevant arguments for debate partner's personal qualities. Rule 3 is also especially important to me lol I'm sure you noticed... and it includes the willingness to articulate things that we already talked about.

Anyhow if you want to add anything to that, do open a new thread on rules of rational arguments - lol it would be an interesting thread.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Good then we are on the same page as I also don't find it unambiguous. Of course I'm pretty sure you made a typo there.  Anyhow, if we were to go into this deeper, you'd find you end up contradicting yourself while trying to show how it is not an ambiguous definition. But I'm not going to nag you about that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 @Kanerou and @itsme45 
According to Gulenko not every Se thinking subtype is aggressive so, itsme45 makes a lot more sense that somebody who has innate core ST thinking patterns with Ti Se, could find themselves as a Ti Se type in Socionics. 
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/28237-Hypothetical-DCNH-descriptions

SLE - ESTp - Conquerer


Dominant subtype: 
(Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov) The logical subtype constructs an impression of quiet force and confidence for themselves. They are rational and sequential in affairs; hardworking and hardy. Usually appear cool, sustained and collected, however, in moments of irritation they express their fury in demonstratively sharp, absolute gestures. Within a quiet atmosphere they are kind and polite, while keeping the interlocutor at a distance. Their humor is sharp, sometimes rude, and they bare a quick, mistrustful glare from under their eyebrows. They’re kind but also serious and guarded. Their gait and gestures appear harmonious, smooth and precise. Tends to dress rather monotonously, however, from time to time can also clothe themselves brightly, even extravagantly. Appreciate quality in apparel and often creates many outfits from a few articles. Thus they show concern for both their behaviour and appearance; though they often seem cold and inaccessible they themselves try to appear proper, equal and benevolent, while maintaining their advantages. 


Creative subtype: 
(Victor Gulenko) Sharp, demonstrative, attacking style of behaviour. Expressive and expansive to the point of being aggressive. Feels at home in emergencies; find themselves in conflicts; can pressure people in order to rapidly introduce order. If conflicts do not occur, they can provoke some in order to then take the initiative into their own hands. Emotional and sociable, will want the attention of more than one person of the opposite sex. Women also display initiative in their acquaintances with men. This subtype is sinewy, mobile, often thin, has a well developed taste, is an epicure. In fashion are drawn to refinement and prestige. 


Normalizing subtype: 
(Victor Gulenko) Prefer to remain in the shadows, not to demonstrate their aspirations, but constantly hold their hands on the pulse of all proceedings around them. Outwardly appears balanced and phlegmatic. Before acting, checks all versions of possible consequences and only then enters into the game. Distrustful and careful, skeptic, conservative and realistic. Because they are not very sociable, may appear to be introverted. If they have their aim on a victim, they act slowly, by the method of the "compressive ring". 


Harmonizing subtype: 
(Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov) The sensory subtype is witty and impulsive… while seemingly concealing within them latent threats they appear unappeasable. However, they are sharp, aggressive and persevering people. Notably resourceful, they are able to manifest vindictiveness in doses that make life for their ill-wishers simply intolerable. Their character appears full of contrasts and unpredictability. Towards those whom they love they are often tender, even sentimental. Their sense of humor easily incorporates sarcasm and caustic irony. Are talkative, charming, witty, critical and sharp, love epithets and slang expressions. Their movements are fast and gait centered, When walking their slightly bent knees provide them with an ingratiating feline resemblance. Appreciate life and tend to watch over their health, periodically exercising through sports/gymnastics. Dresses tastefully and expensively. Usually provide a bright impression of a self-assured and prospering person. 






LSI - ISTj - Inspector


Dominant subtype: 
(Victor Gulenko) Most rational logical type. Very constructive. Their aims are in hierarchy; works thoroughly and brings everything to its end without missing a detail. Not very dynamic and does not transfer confusion. Outwardly is strict, sustained, somewhat single-minded. In working situations is official, and even with close relatives can manifest a barrack style of behaviour. Clothing is conservative, for males: his suit is often in a strict, dark tone. 


Creative subtype: 
(Victor Gulenko) Irregular and impulsive, does not always follow the order they require from others, in this case they are capable of condemning those who disrupt this order. Communicable and courteous from a distance, but on closer observation, can prove to be intolerant. When caught, they can answer with aggression. Their aim is leadership, but they are better at leading small associations. Outwardly appears strong. The men frequently have facial hair. In their clothing they prefer a free style. 


Normalizing subtype: 
(Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov) The logical subtype is self-assured, quiet, constrained, dry, correct and impenetrable. At times seems haughty but is moderately kind and imperturbable. Very polite and attentive to details in conversation, likes that all specify and explain their opinions, but sometimes is prone to get stuck up on nonessential details. When they ask questions they want answers to provide exhaustively detailed information. Dislikes uncertainty and is internally quite collected. They never lose their presence of mind and try to encourage those that require their support. Appears like a straight line, motionless, seeming to look through, rather than at, the interlocutor. Movements are measured but restrained, tendency to shuffle footwear when walking; when they turn they do so suddenly; their neck rests squarely on their shoulders and appears stiff. 


Harmonizing subtype: 
(Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov) The sensory subtype appears comparably restless in their behaviour and internally emotional when compared with the logical subtype. They are reticent yet also obstinate and willing to enter conflicts whenever their opinions are not honored; in such cases they flare up and become unduly sharp and absolute in their statements. Constrained and cold in demeanor, dislikes objections and long explanations. They constantly observe the actions of others in order to try to assist them or to point out their mistakes. Although their remarks may appear rather indignant, and lacking in tact, their intentions are usually constructive, as they wish to help; when their instructions are listened to and carried through successfully they will then offer a kind smile. Dresses conservatively although they sometimes aspire to appear fashionable. During conversation they approach the interlocutor without coming into direct contact. Whether at work or at home they are not inclined to practice superfluous rhetoric or manipulation.


----------

