# Hpothesis: Super-Ego Vulnerable PoLR IS MBTI inferior



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

I have this theory, that how MBTI understood the functional makeup of introverts is wrong. 

When Naomi Quenk speaks of being in the grip of the inferior, she is actually talking about socionics super-ego vulnerable function Nr.4: PoLR.

*For example MBTI ISFJ has this very relationship with it's inferior Ne:*

A type with Ne PoLR has a difficult time understanding ideas that seem new or novel, especially when it has no tangible effect on their lives. Leaving little to chance, they are able to plan out their lives for years ahead of time. This results in difficulties handling unexpected problems in their lives that put a halt on their usual pursuits, and they tend to fear all the possible "what-if's" when those problems prevent them from seeing a clear future. When unsure about something, these types can either avoid making any changes at all or making too quick and reckless of a decision, either of which resulting in missed opportunities. 

*Ne PoLR is ESI or socionics ISFj*, which means the two types are the same, just that MBTI misunderstood the cognitive makeup of introverted types.

This is by far my best discovery so far and *I'm going to go as far as taking full reponsability here for my logical claims*. *Imo this hypothesis is correct* and MBTI made a mistake here, sice MBTI introverted types are not consistent with how Jung saw Rational-Irrational.

*The correct function order for MBTI ISFJ is:* *Fi-Se*-Ti-Ne-Te-Ni-*Fe-Si* and MBTI's model for the cognitive breakdown is erronous . Mbti is not flawed when it tells you, that you are INTP, its only flaw is stating that you are Ti dom as a result. Mbti INTPs are Ni dominant and Se seeking, Fe PoLR and Te creative (you need to get out of your head and do stuff for a change ffs!)

*Evidence can be found in the PoLR and MBTI inferior function descriptions. MBTI 4 letter codes line up with socionics 4 letter codes perfectly ESI (ISFj) is MBTI ISFJ.*

*Keirsey was correct to abandom MBTI functions.*

If you think according to this..all the patterns suddenly make sense, the flaws vanish and the functional theory becomes streamlined and efficient across all systems. *Model A is the correct cognitive model for the mind imo.*

Personally I have no problem being Fi demonstrative and Te PoLR as MBTI IxFP.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

<.< upon discovering a diagram from Jung i revised the IE positions within model A and came up with this:

IEI-INFP

*MBTI: Ni-Fi-Te-Se*

Ego: Ni-Fi

-Leading: Ni
-Creative: Fi

*Super-Ego: Ne-Fe*

-Role: Ne
-Vulnerable: Fe

*Super-Id: Se-Te*

-Suggestive: Se
-Mobilizing: Te

*Id: Si-Ti*

-Ignoring: Si
-Demonstrative: Ti

....which to me makes far more sense then the stuff I have seen before.m IEI is Si ignoring in this case & Ti demonstrative, which makes sense, Se suggestive is in the right place, Te mobilizing makes more sesne etc.. 

8D hehehe


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

I had thought up something like this a while back, when I realized a friend of mine was an MBTI ISFJ (Si-Fe) and yet was definitely ESI.

However, my brother is MBTI ISFJ and I would say SEI fits best. He is an enneatype 9. The friend I mentioned before is a 6... perhaps that plays a part. I associate 9 with the socionics description of Si.

As for myself, I have a very inconsistent personality so I am all over the place, though I relate to both inferior intuition and alpha quadra. I am still relatively new to this, though, so that may change soon enough.

The way I see things currently: you are this type in this system, that type in that system, and some other type in some other system, put them all together and you get a better idea of yourself than a single description could ever give.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> <.< upon discovering a diagram from Jung i revised the IE positions within model A and came up with this:
> 
> IEI-INFP
> 
> ...


Could you explain this further? I quite liked your OP but don't understand where this model came from. What diagram are you referring to?

I could see Si-Fi for me but I wouldn't say Fe vulnerable makes sense.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

zinnia said:


> I had thought up something like this a while back, when I realized a friend of mine was an MBTI ISFJ (Si-Fe) and yet was definitely ESI.
> 
> However, my brother is MBTI ISFJ and I would say SEI fits best. He is an enneatype 9. The friend I mentioned before is a 6... perhaps that plays a part. I associate 9 with the socionics description of Si.
> 
> ...


:3 technically speaking I'm a consistent INFP-IEI-RLUAI in all systems ....as far as dichotomies go. Also type 6. Functions are funny.


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> :3 technically speaking I'm a consistent INFP-IEI-RLUAI in all systems ....as far as dichotomies go. Also type 6. Functions are funny.


I admit my use of functions and dichotomies is haphazard... I sort of combine things and take some information from here and some from there, heh. 

Case in point: The ISFJ/ESI/6 was ISFJ in dichotomies where the ISFJ/SEI/9 was ISFP in dichotomies. Both are inferior Ne and dominant Si in MBTI cognitive-function-land, as far as I understand. I cannot count how many times I've heard "but its not the same as it was before!" or something similar. Also, they will be perfectly fine day-to-day and then when they get stressed out, it is an endless barrage of "WHAT IF THIS HAPPENS WHAT IF THAT HAPPENS EVERYTHING IS GOING TO EXPLODE" which is way out of character.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

bombsaway said:


> Could you explain this further? I quite liked your OP but don't understand where this model came from. What diagram are you referring to?
> 
> I could see Si-Fi for me but I wouldn't say Fe vulnerable makes sense.


The latter approach is due to something @Abraxas posted, where Jung considered ENTJs for example both Te and Ne. To be precise the diagram he posted states clearly that Jung imagined LIE-ENTJ as a Te-Ne-Fi-Si type & ENTPs as Ne-Te-Si-Fi type XD.










This is due to me being irrational base, so I won't reject his idea early on without trying to make it work first.

I just applied my understanding of this combined with model A and came up with *Example: Ni-Fi-Te-Se for IEI *

The original post is something that made sense to me considering that both socionics extroverts and introverts have the same function preferences, while introverts don't. The fault had to be in the misinterpretation of the cognitive sequence in either one of the theories. Socionics Ni dom for INP just makes more sense according to Jung's 4 major dichotomies, so i went with the socionics model and stated that the flaw has to be in MBTI's interpretation of the functions.



zinnia said:


> I admit my use of functions and dichotomies is haphazard... I sort of combine things and take some information from here and some from there, heh.
> 
> Case in point: The ISFJ/ESI/6 was ISFJ in dichotomies where the ISFJ/SEI/9 was ISFP in dichotomies. Both are inferior Ne and dominant Si in MBTI cognitive-function-land, as far as I understand. I cannot count how many times I've heard "but its not the same as it was before!" or something similar. Also, they will be perfectly fine day-to-day and then when they get stressed out, it is an endless barrage of "WHAT IF THIS HAPPENS WHAT IF THAT HAPPENS EVERYTHING IS GOING TO EXPLODE" which is way out of character.


This would make sense under JUNG, since both ESI and SEI have the same function preference

*ESI= Fi-Si-Te-Ne
SEI= Si-Fi-Ne-Te*

...however different order.


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

Ok, I'll bite. Why does this make more sense than the current Model A? Why does this make more sense than the model that @_Abraxas_ presented in his thread: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/154663-16-jungian-types-2.html

EDIT: Did not see the above post, so I apologize for coming off harsh (as well as the last sentence in your OP). I see what you mean now, if someone is T+N and the auxiliary is supposed to be the same orientation as the dominant than the order would follow as Te - Ne. I find that although this would be congruent with what the consensus of MBTI experts like to believe, I dislike the idea that say an extraverted thinking intuitive's N function is truly extraverted in orientation. Same with an introverted intuitive feeling having an N function that is introverted.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Ok, I'll bite. Why does this make more sense than the current Model A? Why does this make more sense than the model that @_Abraxas_ presented in his thread: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/154663-16-jungian-types-2.html
> 
> EDIT: Did not see the above post, so I apologize for coming off harsh (as well as the last sentence in your OP). I see what you mean now, if someone is T+N and the auxiliary is supposed to be the same orientation as the dominant than the order would follow as Te - Ne. I find that although this would be congruent with what the consensus of MBTI experts like to believe, I dislike the idea that say an extraverted thinking intuitive's N function is truly extraverted in orientation. Same with an introverted intuitive feeling having an N function that is introverted.


Hmm, well there is nothing that says you can't use Ne with Te. Objective possibilities perception with objective thinking rationality. It can work, it probably does work. At least with how Jung described the functions it does work.

Its just odd that Ne-Te and Te-Ne are two different types.

I came up with the OP, because there is a break in the logic when transforming types according to dichotomies. ISFP becomes sort of ESI, but not (how can one be both Fi base and Si base at the same time?), while ENTP is ENTP both functionally and the 4 major dichotomies fit as well. It always bothered me and it can only work if:

a) you consider the two systems completely separate 
b) accept that J/P- Rational/irrational is a mess and thus ignore it
c) MBTI function sequence for introverts is broken due to whoever thought it up misunderstanding what made Ni irrational and Fi rational for example. This is likely the case since MBTI doesn't match Jung's rational-irrational dichotomy.

My money is on C and this is my opinion. I'm clearly a P in MBTi (don't test as a J, as a very heavy perciever yes) and the way I think is consistent with inductive reasoning, considering new information and changing the outcome based on incoming information with the outcome unsettled. This is called having irrational preference. In one system I am a rational dominant and in the other I'm irrational dominant.

It simply does not compute 

*Solution to the entire mess:* Ignore the functions and just go with what Keirsey says. The type that fits you best in his book is fully translatable dichotomy by dichotomy into both MBTI and Socionics. In all 3 systems you can be INTJ, if you ignore the functions.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> *Solution to the entire mess:* Ignore the functions and just go with what Keirsey says. The type that fits you best in his book is fully translatable dichotomy by dichotomy into both MBTI and Socionics. In all 3 systems you can be INTJ, if you ignore the functions.


If you're focused on behavioral traits and how you want to be seen/how you come off to people, yes use the dichotomies by all means. If you're going to gauge your functions or information elements, then don't. 

Now in socionics there are other things such as cognitive styles that don't really depend on I vs E, N vs S, T vs F, and j vs p. Those depend on your valued and not valued IE's really and where they fall in model A (these produce a lot of the supposed Reinin traits apparently). 

As for what your aux functions are "supposed to be" I don't think saying that your dominant and aux have to be of the same orientation is any different from saying that your dom and aux have to be of opposing orientations because there will be people who don't match that line of thinking or those functional preferences. I think part of the problem is that people think the functions are static entities that stay consistent over relatively long periods of time. 

I find people who I'd type as INFP in MBTI and INFj in socionics who very well come off as people who largely process the world in terms of how they relate to their own subjective moral principles, and the few of them that don't. I don't think trying to place more emphasis on the 4 letter dichotmies will be easier for everyone, especially if you're not inclined to just accept the dichotmies as they are if you're trying to look at what goes into making them and how they are even particularly relevant to Jung's psychological types. The problem with advocating the dichotomies approach is that it takes away from the importance of the dominant function (which should be what truly makes one a rational or irrational in my opinion) because that is the primary process by which a person interacts with their environment.

I think that because a lot of socionics descriptions are often written in a more social context, the interpretation of the IE's does get a bit skewed, *especially* for the ethical functions. And perhaps there are some systems that shouldn't be married together theoretically speaking due to irreconcilable differences in their criteria for categorization.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Ananael said:


> If you're focused on behavioral traits and how you want to be seen/how you come off to people, yes use the dichotomies by all means. If you're going to gauge your functions or information elements, then don't.
> 
> Now in socionics there are other things such as cognitive styles that don't really depend on I vs E, N vs S, T vs F, and j vs p. Those depend on your valued and not valued IE's really and where they fall in model A (these produce a lot of the supposed Reinin traits apparently).
> 
> ...


Well this is why in large I say that MBTI got the cognitive sequence of introverted types wrong, at least in my case it did. Its not about how tidy one is or organized, but about how one thinks and I think like an irrational dom, despite being a Fi dom in MBTI. (mostly due to being IFP, inferior Te and inductive thinking preference).

You can't really consider yourself cognitively open ended unless you are irrational dom and MBTI perciever is defined by how open and open ended they are, how willing they are to consider new information and to stave off making judgments.

I personally don't believe that going with dichotomies only is "the way", it can be a good alternative if nothing else makes sense yes. If I'd believe that only the dichotomies were useful, I wouldn't even consider making a post like this.

*To me neither system is "holy" enough to not consider "desecrating" both in order to come up with something that is more consistent and useful.* *The dichotomies are rooted in empiricism, the cognitive theory models however are "free game" imo. Why get stuck with explanations given by others when I can think for myself?*

I could be wrong, but maybe I have a point. Why disregard the possibility and chug it down to theory incompatibility? Think about it, what if I'm right one way or another. This begs for further research imo.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> Well this is why in large I say that MBTI got the cognitive sequence of introverted types wrong, at least in my case it did. Its not about how tidy one is or organized, but about how one thinks and I think like an irrational dom, despite being a Fi dom in MBTI.


What suits you doesn't suit everyone else and doesn't make it a plausible explanation for what the cognitive sequences are in others. How do you think like an irrational dominant but label yourself a rational dominant in MBTI? I'd say that part of the problem with a lot of models in MBTI is that it looks to the more extraverted auxiliary function. There's quite a bit of difference in thinking of how things are/seem and thinking in terms of how things should be.



> You can't really consider yourself cognitively open ended unless you are irrational dom and MBTI perciever is defined by how open and open ended they are, how willing they are to consider new information and to stave off making judgments.
> 
> I personally don't believe that going with dichotomies only is "the way", it can be a good alternative if nothing else makes sense yes. If I'd believe that only the dichotomies were useful, I wouldn't even consider making a post like this.


What do you mean by "cognitively open ended" and what does that have to do with being an irrational dominant? I'm not seeing the relevance. 



> *To me neither system is "holy" enough to not consider "desecrating" both in order to come up with something that is more consistent and useful.* *The dichotomies are rooted in empiricism, the cognitive theory models however are "free game" imo. Why get stuck with explanations given by others when I can think for myself?*
> 
> I could be wrong, but maybe I have a point. Why disregard the possibility and chug it down to theory incompatibility?


No one said anything about "holiness" or having to maintain the systems as they are. Empiricism does not entail accuracy, for it is merely observing correlations of things in relationship to one another. Your explanations may suit you alone but not work for everyone and everything else. You can surely use them for yourself, however they will be highly reflective of your personal biases. Unless, you observed and interacted with a wide array of individuals *other than yourself or those who are similar to yourself/inclined to agree with your take on things* in making your assertions and alternative theoretical perspectives. Also remember that theory is an attempt to explain phenomena. Key word is attempt. Some attempts may be closer to the truth than others, however.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

*so confused*


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

I really think Ti Ni loop explains me best. There is most certainly something about my personality that is inconsistent with the types within each system. I don't think any two people agree on my type, and its been like this since the beginning. 

I'd say I obviously fit within the beta quadra in socionics for one thing, and that I'm very much an introvert. Some say that I fit iei better than lsi, but my Fe just sucks.. and at my age you'd think I'd have developed it more, and I have assloads of Ti.. and if I don't have Se stimulation I really feel like I'm wilting. 

I also think that I come off as intuitive because of mbti stereotypes in part. 

I wouldn't say that the few anomalies are enough to rewrite the system, when so many seem to fit in it fine. I think there are just other explanations like my relying heavily on my Ni for whatever fucked reason when I should be outside playing. At my best I'm not brooding and obsessing, stuck in my own head. 

Anyway, I wanted to say more than I'm confused, so its mostly in response to the Ni dom intp thing you mentioned. 

And besides, I'm having fun labeled as a sensor. Lol..


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Promethea said:


> I really think Ti Ni loop explains me best. There is most certainly something about my personality that is inconsistent with the types within each system. I don't think any two people agree on my type, and its been like this since the beginning.
> 
> I'd say I obviously fit within the beta quadra in socionics for one thing, and that I'm very much an introvert. Some say that I fit iei better than lsi, but my Fe just sucks.. and at my age you'd think I'd have developed it more, and I have assloads of Ti.. and if I don't have Se stimulation I really feel like I'm wilting.
> 
> ...


Well yeah, its the same for me with ISFP :\...I mean I have bucket-loads of Fi and Ni, gamma values fit me right enough and I require Se stimulation or I get bored/antsy and that makes me think even more. I'm in a constant Fi-Ni-Te loop or something, other option would be IEI-Ni-Fi-Te-Se. *I should be outside doing something, but what I end up with is obsessing over things like this and some other stuff, constant thinking and being in my head.* I honestly don't know how to stop, maybe should try meditation...but, it never really worked for me, its difficult to tune out all the chaotic sudden thoughts and I end up with his kind of "AHAA! THAT MAKES SENSE!". 

This is my obsession, if not this, then it will be something else and I hope it is never something self destructive or destructive (thou both have happened on occasion, at least I classified them as such). I made that thread about obsessions in the type 6 forums more specifically to juggle some ideas around and try to focus "this thing" on something productive. Still working on that.

I know I can't change the theory, since I'm not qualified, but at least I put the idea out there. If I don't spill it, then I'll obsess more. Analyzing is fun, idk what else to say really.

*sigh

I'll go listen to some Bon Jovi and sleep, takes my mind of stuff.* I need a better hobby.*

@Ananael I'll come up with a reply tomorrow k? its late and very hot today, if I don't sleep now I'll wake up feeling sick. I won't forget and thx everyone for indulging in this discussion .


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

FreeBeer said:


> Well yeah, its the same for me with ISFP :\...I mean I have bucket-loads of Fi and Ni, gamma values fit me right enough and I require Se stimulation or I get bored/antsy and that makes me think even more. I'm in a constant Fi-Ni-Te loop or something, other option would be IEI-Ni-Fi-Te-Se. *I should be outside doing something, but what I end up with is obsessing over things like this and some other stuff, constant thinking and being in my head.* I honestly don't know how to stop, maybe should try meditation...but, it never really worked for me, its difficult to tune out all the chaotic sudden thoughts and I end up with his kind of "AHAA! THAT MAKES SENSE!".
> 
> This is my obsession, if not this, then it will be something else and I hope it is never something self destructive or destructive (thou both have happened on occasion, at least I classified them as such). I made that thread about obsessions in the type 6 forums more specifically to juggle some ideas around and try to focus "this thing" on something productive. Still working on that.
> 
> ...


Alright, eff all this in the a - c'mon, lets go hiking.


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

I agree with @Ananael, particularly with this statement: 

"Your explanations may suit you alone but not work for everyone and everything else. You can surely use them for yourself, however they will be highly reflective of your personal biases."

I deleted a portion of my previous post because I thought it was a bit too harsh but considering the quote above, I wanted to say that I still get the impression that this model you propose has more to do with feeling more secure about your self-typing than posing an objective interpretation.

I say this because throughout the time I've been here on PerC, you've consistently identified as ISFP/INFP, with the one thing being certain that you use Fi/Te, which can be verified in this thread: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...ow-i-know-more-about-me-lets-try-again-2.html

However, you then made this thread http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ad-why-i-relate-so-much-being-irrational.html and http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...rina-filatovas-socioninics-test-have-fun.html where you question whether you are Fi-dom/rational dom because you don't identify with the IJ temperament, asserting that you believe you are of the IP temperament.

Now all of a sudden, you propose this model where IEI is Ni base and Fi creative which you also claim is your type in this thread, at least according to this model.


FreeBeer said:


> :3 technically speaking I'm a consistent INFP-*IEI*-RLUAI in all systems ....as far as dichotomies go. Also type 6. Functions are funny.


It's a little too coincidental that you propose a model that happens to allow you to be of the IP temperament but still maintain Fi as an ego function, taking into consideration the above. However, to be fair, your interpretation does make some sense. There seems to be a lack of organization and clarity though.

Not that my opinion matters but honestly man, I think you're over-analyzing this shit. No one can tell you what your type is but I really think you exemplify Fi-Dom/Te-inferior (especially the latter). But whatever, I don't want to derail the thread too much. Just wanted to point out that it appears you have an ulterior motive for this model.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

I think that you are looking for a correlation where there isn't one.

If you are bored I would love to read any theory explaining how it's possible that Rick in walking dead and Ned Stark in game of thrones can be ISTJ in MBTI but ESI in socionics.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> Well this is why in large I say that MBTI got the cognitive sequence of introverted types wrong, at least in my case it did. Its not about how tidy one is or organized, but about how one thinks and I think like an irrational dom, despite being a Fi dom in MBTI.


Dunno about this. You've been analyzing the same "narrow" set of problems (socionics-mbti inconsistencies) for as long as I've known you on this forum. This doesn't look like an irrational approach to be honest -- if you were Ni dom you'd already move on and all these inconsistencies wouldn't bother you so much with dominant irrationality. Meticulous analysis of narrow scope problem is described of Ji-Ixxj types, like this Ti-ISTj profile: 

"Very polite and attentive to details in conversation, likes to specify and clarify everything, but sometimes becomes too focused on details that are nonessential to others. Unhurried, perhaps even slow. Likes receiving exhaustively comprehensive and thorough information to his inquiries. ... Trusts only in official sources of information. A good researcher of narrow issues. Delves into all the details without dismissing and losing sight of anything minor. Accurately maintains records, likes to clarify facts, readily informs those who turn to him for advice about any regulations, about which he is usually informed)."

If I didn't think that you valued Fi, basing on the way your posts are carefully worded, thought out, and structured I'd already type you as Ti-ISTj =P




FreeBeer said:


> I came up with the OP, because there is a break in the logic when transforming types according to dichotomies. ISFP becomes sort of ESI, but not (how can one be both Fi base and Si base at the same time?), while ENTP is ENTP both functionally and the 4 major dichotomies fit as well. It always bothered me and it can only work if:
> 
> a) you consider the two systems completely separate
> b) accept that J/P- Rational/irrational is a mess and thus ignore it
> ...


I've put my jungian moolah on b) personally and consider that both judger-perceiver and rational-irrational dichotomies have been poorly described, that the fault isn't with MBTI getting the functions wrong, but with both MBTI and Socionics royally screwing up their j/p's.



FreeBeer said:


> Well yeah, its the same for me with ISFP :\...I mean I have bucket-loads of Fi and Ni, gamma values fit me right enough and I require Se stimulation or I get bored/antsy and that makes me think even more. I'm in a constant Fi-Ni-Te loop or something, other option would be IEI-Ni-Fi-Te-Se. *I should be outside doing something, but what I end up with is obsessing over things like this and some other stuff, constant thinking and being in my head.* I honestly don't know how to stop, maybe should try meditation...but, it never really worked for me, its difficult to tune out all the chaotic sudden thoughts and I end up with his kind of "AHAA! THAT MAKES SENSE!".
> 
> This is my obsession, if not this, then it will be something else and I hope it is never something self destructive or destructive (thou both have happened on occasion, at least I classified them as such). I made that thread about obsessions in the type 6 forums more specifically to juggle some ideas around and try to focus "this thing" on something productive. Still working on that.


I'm usually in a Ni-Ti loop, often browsing for new information, reading, "stockpiling" it for I dunno what purpose exactly.

One remedy I've found against this is living with extroverts, or otherwise spending time in their company -- they provoke me to direct my attention outwards and go into "producing/creative" mode, instead of directing it inwards and focusing on passively absorbing information all the time.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Ananael said:


> What suits you doesn't suit everyone else and doesn't make it a plausible explanation for what the cognitive sequences are in others. How do you think like an irrational dominant but label yourself a rational dominant in MBTI? I'd say that part of the problem with a lot of models in MBTI is that it looks to the more extraverted auxiliary function. There's quite a bit of difference in thinking of how things are/seem and thinking in terms of how things should be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is my understanding that irrational doms are more inclined to think in terms of probability and are comfortable exploring the possibilities, in stead of applying deductive reasoning and andticipating specific results based on global understanding. The approach should differ with rationals prefering deductive and knowing answers in advance from general to specific and irrationals from specific to general. I use inductive reasoning, as default I cunsult personal experience and try to make theory fit it, not the other way around. Theory is nice but its useless if it doesen't meet personal experience. By open ended I mean exactly this, from specifics to various probable general conclusions.

I don't understand how my theory working for me personally refutes the logic of the OP. That is not an argument against it to be precise and it should not discredit the idea behind what I said. The functions need to be the same to reach the same type result, with only Si and Se being different from the MBTI interpretation, at the very least intuitive introverts should be the same dichotomy-wise and the functional makeup as well. They are not and I don't understand how this inconsistency doesen't bother so many ppl.



Inguz said:


> I think that you are looking for a correlation where there isn't one.
> 
> If you are bored I would love to read any theory explaining how it's possible that Rick in walking dead and Ned Stark in game of thrones can be ISTJ in MBTI but ESI in socionics.


Ned Stark is not Fi. He follows tradition and a code of honor. He doesen't do what he feels is right, he does what is honorable and he is stubburn like that. Thats not Fi. In Game of thrones *Arya Stark displays Fi clearly, to be precise Fi<->Se*. Ned is ISTJ in MBTI and idk what in socionics, most likely delta SLI. Ned can't have Se, considering what he does at King's Landing he clearly prefers Si.

Rick on the other hand is ISFP, due to the stress he is acting like ETJ. In socionics imo ESI fits him quite nicely. It however is just my limited understanding. *XD plus these are fictional characters . How are they relevant?*

@TheLaughingMan

Harshness and how it affects me or others is irrelevant considering the current context, what matters is logical accuracy. My theory working for myself does not make it invalid or questionable. You'll have to argue against it in some other way that makes more sense. Considering how many ISFPs for example identify as SEI and not ESI, I'd say I have a point and this is just one example.

 attempts at arguing against the hypothesis by questioning the user's motives and pointing at personal bias is a poor way of arguing against the logic and this is not just my opinion: *ad hominem*.

*You guys will have to argue by backing up both or one theory logically and proving that it makes more sense then what I stated. Plz argue against the theory and not against me. This is valid for all ad hominem attempts.*










@cyamitide

:kitteh: I'll take that as a compliment. Hmm...I'd need an extroverted friend.  don't have one...yet. Will fix it.

Option B is a good choice, any of the above mentioned 3 is probable imo. Mybe there are other options, couldn't think of other ones thou.

*You also have a point as to why I'd be more rational then irational, i'll think on what you said*.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> It is my understanding that irrational doms are more inclined to think in terms of probability and are comfortable exploring the possibilities, in stead of applying deductive reasoning and andticipating specific results based on global understanding. The approach should differ with rationals prefering deductive and knowing answers in advance from general to specific and irrationals from specific to general. I use inductive reasoning, as default I cunsult personal experience and try to make theory fit it, not the other way around. Theory is nice but its useless if it doesen't meet personal experience. By open ended I mean exactly this, from specifics to various probable general conclusions.


Haha. No. Just no. 
I suggest that you read the cognitive styles in socionics a bit more closely. SEE, ILI, ILE, and SEI are _irrational_ types that favor _deductive_ reasoning while LIE, ESI, LII, and ESE are _rational _types favor _inductive _reasoning. Irrational vs rational has nothing to do with being a deductive or inductive reasoner. Being a rational has nothing to do with knowing answers in advance and being an irrational doesn't necessarily deal with considering all kinds of possibilities (that actually fits most versions of MBTI's Ne better if anything). Rationals tend to gauge their worlds in terms of "should's" and "oughts" whether that be to make things conform to certain external standards (Je) or to adhere to a consistent set of unchanging principles (Ji). Irrationals gauge their worlds in terms of observing the nature of things whether they be observing external states of what is or could be (Pe) or gauging the connections and relationships between ideas or or tangible things (Pi). (Aside: My phrasing of the irrationals could use a bit of condensing I suppose.)



> I don't understand how my theory working for me personally refutes the logic of the OP. That is not an argument against it to be precise and it should not discredit the idea behind what I said. The functions need to be the same to reach the same type result, with only Si and Se being different from the MBTI interpretation, at the very least intuitive introverts should be the same dichotomy-wise and the functional makeup as well. They are not and I don't understand how this inconsistency doesen't bother so many ppl.


The logic of the OP is refutable because it does not seem to capture a perspective that is applicable to many different situations other than yours and a maybe a few others that seem to have the same issue. Theory is not the result of your personal experience alone, but the collection of personal experiences and observations of many. Theory is also not something personalized, but rather it is a generalization that attempts to explain what is happening and why it happens. So even though you think it's the best thing ever invented, someone else could think it complete and utter bollocks. The problem is that you are not recognizing the systems as two different ones but rather semi-warped versions of one another. You are looking for some glorified, end all be all, system where everything is consistent and perfect and comes full circle when clearly it won't ever be. While they may share similar roots, both systems branch off at some point and deviate from one another. 

Instead of thinking of the system as similar looking fraternal twins that get confused for identicals, think of this as the schizm between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. A lot of their practices may bear similarities due to the customs adopted from their previous state of union, but differences in rituals and practices is what separates them now and tore them apart back in the 12th or 13th century (which ever one it was-- my memory is lacking haha).


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

@_FreeBeer_

No ad hominem was made. An ad hominem is when a person makes an argument against another person by attacking them personally thus asserting that their claim is false. Where in my previous post did I make an argument? Where did I question the truth behind your claim? All I did was question your motive for proposing this model and provided my reasoning for why I do. That is different than forming an argument, particularly an ad hominem. If I had actually asserted that the hypothesis or logic regarding the model was false than it would have been an ad hominem but that wasn't the case.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

> MBTI function sequence for introverts is broken due to whoever thought it up misunderstanding what made Ni irrational and Fi rational for example. This is likely the case since MBTI doesn't match Jung's rational-irrational dichotomy.




I think they could have the function sequencing right, but that's because their J vs P is (at least according to Lenore Thompson) more their relation to the external world, not quite measuring irrationality or rationality in the Jungian sense. Now _why_ you might ask would an introvert with preference of intuition or sensation come across as a J type. I'd guess if there is any connection to the cognitive model a bunch of the MBTI community subscribes follows from the respective dichotomies, it has to do most with an introverted perceiver or judger wishing freedom from their inferior, freedom from objective reality, and _differing notions of freedom_ result in adopting the types. I mean, qualitatively, why I could imagine an introverted perceiver or judger of MBTI answering in favor of the J and P questions respectively. 

It seems to me significant that in MBTI (at least there's definitely supposed to be a school believing this), the cognitive models are meant to _follow_ from the dichotomies, which leads me to believe we have to ask why a Fi-dominant by MBTI's model would answer in favor of P on the dichotomies test, not to assume J is meant to signify Jung's rational type.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

> you consider the two systems completely separate




I personally sort of do. The thing is the functions are described by different people in totally different ways.

I _do_ have theories on combining everything, but that will simply not work if we accept socionics is in part based on the quadras. I can combine the systems more structurally by tweaking how I see the functions. I cannot do so however by preserving the integrity of what each is attempting to measure, and thus the thing ultimately is I have to acknowledge people devised these things to measure a certain thing, and it is what it is.



Also, in relation to how you organized the ego's functional preferences, I already gave an explanation in Abraxas's thread of what I thought he was doing, and he seemed to agree with me. 
Essentially my claim is that if you want to force a dichotomy approach to determine how your model A fits together, the closest I can claim is that the static / dynamic dichotomy seems to dictate all. The ego is not organized around whether an individual prefers I/E, it's static/dynamic -- in your ego you "choose" and in your Id block the opposite counterparts exist. Dynamic information is relatively unconscious in the static type, but that which is not seen as more aptly pursued through the ego block is relegated as sought. Some may find that this static/dynamic thing lot more explanatory than the I/E dichotomy. 
Whereas the Abraxas model was re-organized around I/E. His model roughly was that if you're dogmatically I, then your valued functions in model A (1, 2, 5, 6) are going to be introverted, and the 7, 8 are the extroverted counterparts to the introverted ones in the ego.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

TheLaughingMan said:


> @_FreeBeer_
> 
> No ad hominem was made. An ad hominem is when a person makes an argument against another person by attacking them personally thus asserting that their claim is false. Where in my previous post did I make an argument? Where did I question the truth behind your claim? All I did was question your motive for proposing this model and provided my reasoning for why I do. That is different than forming an argument, particularly an ad hominem. If I had actually asserted that the hypothesis or logic regarding the model was false than it would have been an ad hominem but that wasn't the case.


Yet you still didn't directly adress the issue, who I am and what my situation is has little relevance when it comes to the hypothesis. Adress the issue at hand plz. You could lay it down to the two systems being incompatible and argue for it with evidence for example.

This is kind of frustrating, its as if people are turning a blind eye to a logical inconsistency. Something is not right here and imo it can not be ignored. Its not just my specific position, many people have similar or the same issue with the two systems.

If there is a flaw it must be adressed, disected and corrected or explanations need to be provided that make sense. I can't chug it down to "Oh well this is how it is."

If the two systems are that different, then you have to understand that both are researching the same thing :cognitive functions. For this reason one type from one system HAS to be translatable to the other. This is not enneagram & MBTI and we can't state that they are looking at completely different things.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

What is not right? I think there are lot of issues, mostly coming down to models being rigid, although there's some benefit to understanding them too. I'll take a crack at clarifying what I can. I tried presenting above reasons as to the difference --- one is simply that the MBTI dichotomies are their own thing and I don't think socionics much does dichotomies in the same spirit (erhm, by which I mean where the dichotomies are essentially distinctions associated to the polarities focused on by Jung and pretty clearly reminiscent of the vocabulary, if not philosophy, of his functions+orientations, but not organized quite as functions despite ultimately relating to them if one subscribes to type dynamics which is their closest approximation to Jungian theory), nor does MBTI really do quadras.
The other is that (well in retrospect these reasons are hardly unlinked), while the systems both study cognitive functions, they do so from different angles (which isn't to say I prefer one to the other).


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Ananael said:


> Haha. No. Just no.
> I suggest that you read the cognitive styles in socionics a bit more closely. SEE, ILI, ILE, and SEI are _irrational_ types that favor _deductive_ reasoning while LIE, ESI, LII, and ESE are _rational _types favor _inductive _reasoning. Irrational vs rational has nothing to do with being a deductive or inductive reasoner. Being a rational has nothing to do with knowing answers in advance and being an irrational doesn't necessarily deal with considering all kinds of possibilities (that actually fits most versions of MBTI's Ne better if anything). Rationals tend to gauge their worlds in terms of "should's" and "oughts" whether that be to make things conform to certain external standards (Je) or to adhere to a consistent set of unchanging principles (Ji). Irrationals gauge their worlds in terms of observing the nature of things whether they be observing external states of what is or could be (Pe) or gauging the connections and relationships between ideas or or tangible things (Pi). (Aside: My phrasing of the irrationals could use a bit of condensing I suppose.)


>D YESS! Finally! Ok, this makes sense and it works in both systems. I'll have to agree with this.



> The logic of the OP is refutable because it does not seem to capture a perspective that is applicable to many different situations other than yours and a maybe a few others that seem to have the same issue. Theory is not the result of your personal experience alone, but the collection of personal experiences and observations of many. Theory is also not something personalized, but rather it is a generalization that attempts to explain what is happening and why it happens. So even though you think it's the best thing ever invented, someone else could think it complete and utter bollocks. *The problem is that you are not recognizing the systems as two different ones but rather semi-warped versions of one another. **You are looking for some glorified, end all be all, system where everything is consistent and perfect and comes full circle when clearly it won't ever be.* While they may share similar roots, both systems branch off at some point and deviate from one another.


They are loking at the same thing, thus they are similar and translatable. Ne PoLR makes no sense for me specifically and as I stated I am not the only ISFP or INTP or etc that considers the PoLR function problematic, where the the type seems to translate better dychotomy by dychotomy, this includes the PoLR.

I disagree and am not alone in this, I am more outspoken about the issue however.




> Instead of thinking of the system as similar looking fraternal twins that get confused for identicals, think of this as the schizm between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. A lot of their practices may bear similarities due to the customs adopted from their previous state of union, but differences in rituals and practices is what separates them now and tore them apart back in the 12th or 13th century (which ever one it was-- my memory is lacking haha)


.

Ok, I understand, however the church is spreadding psychological comfort and the content is very questionable, its not really the same. Function theory has logic and empirical data backing it up. Information elements make sense. God does not. This is not a quesion of belief imo, there is only one correct answer.

Still Ne PolR makes no sense for ISFP. *Yes I narrowed down the iconsistency to ne PoLR, whcih is more consistent with MBTI ISFJ then ISFP.*


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@bearotter :crazy: I'm at work damn it, will respond as soon as I can. Patience.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> They are loking at the same thing, thus they are similar and translatable. Ne PoLR makes no sense for me specifically and as I stated I am not the only ISFP or INTP or etc that considers the PoLR function problematic, where the the type seems to translate better dychotomy by dychotomy, this includes the PoLR.


Looking at the same thing does not mean that they are translatable. That's like saying that translating two different languages that are describing the same objects in front of them are perfectly translatable. Things get lost in translation all the time because certain languages have different means for describing the same objects and actions that may not properly be conveyed in another language. Yeah some things should at least be able to be gathered, but there will always be things that one system focuses on that the other neglects, thus leaving us with a few ideas that get "lost in translation" with respect to both theories.



> I disagree and am not alone in this, I am more outspoken about the issue however.


I find that most people with such qualms with the theories often have to adjust them and their interpretations of them to fit their self concept and they have a more rigid interpretation of the theory to begin with. They do this only to create a new rigid system that fits their self concept. It never really solves a major problem with the way theory is presented.



> Ok, I understand, however the church is spreadding psychological comfort and the content is very questionable, its not really the same. Function theory has logic and empirical data backing it up. Information elements make sense. God does not. This is not a quesion of belief imo, there is only one correct answer.
> 
> Still Ne PolR makes no sense for ISFP.


It was purely an analogy, and you're missing the bloody point with your spiel on the existence of god. And don't even go there with the belief crap when half of this thread is rooted in your beliefs about how the theory should be to begin with. 

Ne PoLR has nothing to do with ISFP. Someone can identify with ISFP and Ne PoLR to begin with. And let me tell you why (I'd like to thank @nujabes for inspiring this realization earlier). ISFP in many MBTI models uses Fi-Se-Ni-Te in that order. In the Beebe model the tertiary function is the puer and the inferior function is the anima. If what I remember of archetypes in dreams holds true, then the anima is often an ideal female figure (for males at least) and the animus the ideal male figure (for females at least). Sometimes this is painted in a more romantic fashion, other times not. Also keep in mind that the dominant function and inferior function are complimentary, so even though the anima is largely subconscious and not an active part of the conscious psyche, they both share the same attitude in that they are both a pair of rational or irrational functions. And it's a bit funny that the hero would be the dominant function. If the inferior compared to that which is "ideal" it's no wonder that socionics pairs the the dual pairs the way that they do. (The hero in search of his damsel in distress which he can save and ride off into the sunset with, har har.)

The auxiliary function is the parent I believe, while the tertiary is the child. Which is a good way to describe the relationship between the aux and tert functions since they are compliment irrational/rational functions. I'm assuming that there is a stronger awareness of when the inferior grip is taking a hold of someone because the function that works as a compliment to the dominant function is something that would be easier to realize seeing as they are both of the same realm (irrational/rational) despite being different attitudes (probably why dual seeking functions exist the way they do in socionics and rather than being inferior it was labeled as the suggestive). I think that while the auxiliary function is familiar to some extent (as is the creative function in socionics, mind you) the awareness of hyperactivity of the tertiary function might not be nearly as acute because the dominant function does not take on the same operation as the aux/tert actions. Thus making the tertiary a bit more foreign. 

Now I get to the really relevant stuff. So F-S-N-T makes up the pattern first 4 slots if I am not mistaken. In the shadow section Ne would be the trickster (which corresponds to the position of Ni in the first portion of the stack). Archetypically speaking, such a character is often perceived as a source of discomfort, and I could very well see this being PoLR for the person who identifies with MBTI's ISFP. I know you're going to probably disapprove of my "misuse" of the Beebe model as it is laid out to show you where I drew some parallels, but whatever.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

bearotter said:


> I think they could have the function sequencing right, but that's because their J vs P is (at least according to Lenore Thompson) more their relation to the external world, not quite measuring irrationality or rationality in the Jungian sense. Now _why_ you might ask would an introvert with preference of intuition or sensation come across as a J type. I'd guess if there is any connection to the cognitive model a bunch of the MBTI community subscribes follows from the respective dichotomies, it has to do most with an introverted perceiver or judger wishing freedom from their inferior, freedom from objective reality, and _differing notions of freedom_ result in adopting the types. I mean, qualitatively, why I could imagine an introverted perceiver or judger of MBTI answering in favor of the J and P questions respectively.
> 
> It seems to me significant that in MBTI (at least there's definitely supposed to be a school believing this), the cognitive models are meant to _follow_ from the dichotomies, which leads me to believe we have to ask why a Fi-dominant by MBTI's model would answer in favor of P on the dichotomies test, not to assume J is meant to signify Jung's rational type. [/COLOR]


Hmm, well as far as statements from MBTI practitioners go, they clearly stated that MBTI J & P are not Jung's Rational-Irrational. There is no problem with this thus far, however there is a problem once we take into account how Ne PoLR turns for example ESI (ISFj) into a stereotypical MBTI ISJ (this includes description of the inferior in MBTI ISFJ) and I quote:



> A type with Ne PoLR has a difficult time understanding ideas that seem new or novel, especially when it has no tangible effect on their lives. Leaving little to chance, they are able to plan out their lives for years ahead of time. This results in difficulties handling unexpected problems in their lives that put a halt on their usual pursuits, and they tend to fear all the possible "what-if's" when those problems prevent them from seeing a clear future. When unsure about something, these types can either avoid making any changes at all or making too quick and reckless of a decision, either of which resulting in missed opportunities.


*The above quote is in no way in line with ISFP hedonistic-artistic-spontanious impulsivity and living one day at a time without planning.*


> I personally sort of do. The thing is the functions are described by different people in totally different ways.
> 
> I do have theories on combining everything, but that will simply not work if we accept socionics is in part based on the quadras. I can combine the systems more structurally by tweaking how I see the functions. I cannot do so however by preserving the integrity of what each is attempting to measure, and thus the thing ultimately is I have to acknowledge people devised these things to measure a certain thing, and it is what it is.
> 
> ...


IEI-INFP

MBTI: Ni-Fi-Te-Se

Ego: Ni-Fi

-Leading: Ni 
-Creative: Fi 

Super-Ego: Ne-Fe

-Role: Ne
-Vulnerable: Fe

Super-Id: Se-Te

-Suggestive: Se 
-Mobilizing: Te 

Id: Si-Ti

-Ignoring: Si 
-Demonstrative: Ti

Hmm I rationalized that since the Ego contains the two introverted functions in case of lets say an introverted intuitive feeler, then the ID needs to contain the exact opposite of these, which will not be the extroverted version. Ni’s exact opposite is Si for example and thus Model A will contain the functions in the above order. The Super-Ego then containing the identical but extroverted versions of the Ego functions. This makes more sense imo considering the definitions of what ego-id-superego are.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Ananael said:


> Looking at the same thing does not mean that they are translatable. That's like saying that translating two different languages that are describing the same objects in front of them are perfectly translatable. Things get lost in translation all the time because certain languages have different means for describing the same objects and actions that may not properly be conveyed in another language. Yeah some things should at least be able to be gathered, but there will always be things that one system focuses on that the other neglects, thus leaving us with a few ideas that get "lost in translation" with respect to both theories.


-.- sigh, its not lost in translation, a duck is a duck regardless of language, perspective etc.. Thus the functions are what they are and all languages are describing the same thing. There exists only ONE objective view on reality, perspectives are there to be superimposed to get at the truth, thus MBTI and Socionics need to be superimposed and there are areas that contradict eachother <==the problem. Blame my holographic thinking style if you wish .



> I find that most people with such qualms with the theories often have to adjust them and their interpretations of them to fit their self concept and they have a more rigid interpretation of the theory to begin with. They do this only to create a new rigid system that fits their self concept. It never really solves a major problem with the way theory is presented.


This may very well be true. Time will tell. 



> It was purely an analogy, and you're missing the bloody point with your spiel on the existence of god. And don't even go there with the belief crap when half of this thread is rooted in your beliefs about how the theory should be to begin with.


Sry I overreacted, you gave religion as the analogy.



> Ne PoLR has nothing to do with ISFP. Someone can identify with ISFP and Ne PoLR to begin with.


I'd like to see this ISFP  seriously a ISFP who plans ahead fro years to avoid surprises.



> And let me tell you why (I'd like to thank @nujabes for inspiring this realization earlier). ISFP in many MBTI models uses Fi-Se-Ni-Te in that order. In the Beebe model the tertiary function is the puer and the inferior function is the anima. If what I remember of archetypes in dreams holds true, then the anima is often an ideal female figure (for males at least) and the animus the ideal male figure (for females at least). Sometimes this is painted in a more romantic fashion, other times not. Also keep in mind that the dominant function and inferior function are complimentary, so even though the anima is largely subconscious and not an active part of the conscious psyche, they both share the same attitude in that they are both a pair of rational or irrational functions. And it's a bit funny that the hero would be the dominant function. If the inferior compared to that which is "ideal" it's no wonder that socionics pairs the the dual pairs the way that they do. (The hero in search of his damsel in distress which he can save and ride off into the sunset with, har har.)


 I don't see ENTjs in need of saving...(^^ joking ah). Regardless the Jung-Model A function stack I posted right above this one still has Suggestive-diual seeking Se outlined for IEI, despite the creative being Fi and not Fe. Thou the rest would deviate. So yeah...bad.



> The auxiliary function is the parent I believe, while the tertiary is the child. Which is a good way to describe the relationship between the aux and tert functions since they are compliment irrational/rational functions. I'm assuming that there is a stronger awareness of when the inferior grip is taking a hold of someone because the function that works as a compliment to the dominant function is something that would be easier to realize seeing as they are both of the same realm (irrational/rational) despite being different attitudes (probably why dual seeking functions exist the way they do in socionics and rather than being inferior it was labeled as the suggestive). I think that while the auxiliary function is familiar to some extent (as is the creative function in socionics, mind you) the awareness of hyperactivity of the tertiary function might not be nearly as acute because the dominant function does not take on the same operation as the aux/tert actions. Thus making the tertiary a bit more foreign.
> 
> Now I get to the really relevant stuff. So F-S-N-T makes up the pattern first 4 slots if I am not mistaken. In the shadow section Ne would be the trickster (which corresponds to the position of Ni in the first portion of the stack). Archetypically speaking, such a character is often perceived as a source of discomfort, and I could very well see this being PoLR for the person who identifies with MBTI's ISFP. I know you're going to probably disapprove of my "misuse" of the Beebe model as it is laid out to show you where I drew some parallels, but whatever.


*_* w8 I'm understanding this correctly? :3 you are agreeing with my other thread that superimposing Beebe's model and Model A was a good idea?  ...uhm you can misuse Beebe's model any time 

...maybe PoLR is just the discomfort, something I agree with, but the part where it leads ISFP to plan ahead to avoid surprises and unforseen things...nope. 



> A type with Ne PoLR has a difficult time understanding ideas that seem new or novel, especially when it has no tangible effect on their lives. *Leaving little to chance, they are able to plan out their lives for years ahead of time. This results in difficulties handling unexpected problems in their lives that put a halt on their usual pursuits, and they tend to fear all the possible "what-if's" when those problems prevent them from seeing a clear future.* When unsure about something, these types can either avoid making any changes at all or making too quick and reckless of a decision, either of which resulting in missed opportunities.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> *The above quote is in no way in line with ISFP hedonistic-artistic-spontanious impulsivity and living one day at a time without planning.*


I'd say it lines up pretty well, actually. 



> _A type with Ne PoLR has a difficult time understanding ideas that seem new or novel, especially when it has no tangible effect on their lives._


_
_ISFPs are like this. They may like 'novel' things but they're very down to earth. Probably be into cute baby animals or a novel, quirky t-shirt rather than a novel idea / fantasy. _




Leaving little to chance, they are able to plan out their lives for years ahead of time.

Click to expand...

_I think everyone plans out a little bit. The ISFP would plan out very concrete ideas for near future, though. Maybe things like, I want to be a chef at x restaurant. Their fantasies are specific, idealistic and probably 'out of this world' in an optimistic way (in healthy cases). The ISFP might consider going to a cookery class and being a master chef but not really put much thought into how they'll pay for it or what would happen if their chosen restaurant didn't have a vacancy._



This results in difficulties handling unexpected problems in their lives that put a halt on their usual pursuits,

Click to expand...

_
An unexpected problem might be an unpaid bill, something that's come from them being unorganised or stereotypically 'P' like. Just because they're planning ahead doesn't mean they're regimented and prepared.
_



and they tend to fear all the possible "what-if's" when those problems prevent them from seeing a clear future.

Click to expand...

_Fi-Ni loop? Becoming distrustful and paranoid etc.
_



When unsure about something, these types can either avoid making any changes at all or making too quick and reckless of a decision, either of which resulting in missed opportunities.

Click to expand...

_Sounds pretty sensory and hedonistic to me. Again with the Fi-Ni, they being distrustful and shut out others. They believe they know best so might ignore offers of help from others or be too paranoid to take a chance. On the opposite end, they might panic and be the typical hedonistic artist and make whatever decision seems best at the time and not look to the future.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

bombsaway said:


> I'd say it lines up pretty well, actually.
> 
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]ISFPs are like this. They may like 'novel' things but they're very down to earth. Probably be into cute baby animals or a novel, quirky t-shirt rather than a novel idea / fantasy. _
> ...


o.o..when you put it like that..yeah...so why can't I relate? To me a suden problem is an opportunity to improvise and skillfully solve the problem. My plans are like this: build that part of the house somewhere by the end of the year (no details). I tend to imagine the already completed house and then I just start sometime when I feel like it. If I reach the deadline and complete what I proposed its okay, if I don't its okay as well, just extend the deadline ...there are always problems along the way so ther is no use planning or worrying. Relax, make the most of it and improvise.

Novelty doesen't scare me, in fact its exiting imo, something new to think about and spend time on disecting / understnading / experiencing. Cats and quirky T-shirts are nice, but it doesen't beat the exhileration of something like making this thread and hashing out ideas.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> o.o..when you put it like that..yeah...so why can't I relate? To me a suden problem is an opportunity to improvise and skillfully solve the problem. My plans are like this: build that part of the house somewhere by the end of the year (no details). I tend to imagine the already completed house and then I just start sometime when I feel like it. If I reach the deadline and complete what I proposed its okay, if I don't its okay as well, just extend the deadline ...there are always problems along the way so ther is no use planning or worrying. Relax, make the most of it and improvise.


This actually seems pretty IJ-ish IMO. So you have the distant plan but aren't desperate to complete it. You deal with unexpected problems first and plan for them (not necessarily plan in the sense that you pre-empted them and put measures in place to deal with them but more like you've taken them into consideration and adjusted your attitude accordingly). The deadline isn't important but getting it done is (sort of like your attitude to this problem - keep working at it until it's done).

My approach would be more like, "Oh I haven't wallpapered that room yet." Then I'd make a flawless action plan to get the room done and research the products and buy them then maybe do a third of the room if I'm lucky and then go do something else. I'd probably only finish the room if someone was going to see it. In terms of Personality Typing, I don't keep working at it. It either makes sense or it doesn't. If it doesn't, I distance myself from it so I'm not getting stressed over pop psychology and then come back when I want to and am more relaxed. I guess finishing isn't important to me. I'd live in a state of complete disarray if it didn't a) make my life uncomfortable or b) make me look bad in front of other people (you know you're Alpha SF when..)



> Novelty doesen't scare me, in fact its exiting imo, something new to think about and spend time on disecting / understnading / experiencing. Cats and quirky T-shirts are nice, but it doesen't beat the exhileration of something like making this thread and hashing out ideas.


I'd take the kittens. They're just as rewarding without all the hassle. :3


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

bombsaway said:


> I'd take the kittens. They're just as rewarding without all the hassle. :3


._. kittens are always rewarding. <3


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> well as far as statements from MBTI practitioners go, they clearly stated that MBTI J & P are not Jung's Rational-Irrational




OK if we're on the same page then, we can accept that an ISFJ in MBTI is _not_ a Jungian rational type, not as per what at least one MBTI theorist definitively states. 




> how Ne PoLR turns for example ESI (ISFj) into a stereotypical MBTI ISJ (this includes description of the inferior in MBTI ISFJ)




While the description may appear to make it seem that way, in contrasting / comparing Model A with the MBTI model, I'd think this should not be the case, because as far as I understand it, the MBTI's version of the inferior function is a function which we have a love-hate relationship with, rather than a function we completely barf at and don't care for in the slightest (like LII and Se). For instance, an introverted thinker in MBTI has Fe as the inferior, but Fi in the "shadow", and Ti with Ne has Se and Fi both in the shadow functions, which is to say MBTI doesn't even think that the type values developing those functions. 
In the case of ESI, the rough (raw cognitive function vocabulary) equivalent would be ISFP, and they would have Ne in the shadow. 

The philosophy is that the inferior function is one which constantly exerts influence on the dominant, but we are much more aware of the dominant and thus focus on it to carry out our will in the dom-inf axis. So in a way, given the MBTI inferior is one we are supposed to gradually make peace with, it might be somewhat akin to one of functions 5, 6 which we seek out from others and are not in opposition to, although it's hard to reconcile with them without serious effort. 

What I'm saying is, if we do really want to look cross-system, the philosophies seem not totally different, given that the last two shadow functions in MBTI are probably the last things we want to access or pay attention to. And my understanding is that is also pretty true of the super-ego block.




> _A type with Ne PoLR has a difficult time understanding ideas that seem new or novel, especially when it has no tangible effect on their lives. Leaving little to chance, they are able to plan out their lives for years ahead of time. _




OK. I think I see part of the issue you're having. The first of these two sentences makes some sense to be very honest. At the heart of an extroverted sensation sort in almost any system is at least some appreciation for the concept of "tangible" -- tangible effect probably relates to socionics emphasis on Se seeing how to set things in motion (kinetic energy).

However the second of the two sentences, I'm not sure about -- it seems somewhat _not_ in line with what it means to be a _static type_. A static Se type in particular. Unless one interprets the sort of planning they are doing in a context which makes sense for a static type, whose focus is far from the time axis. 




Wikisocion said:


> The objectives of Statics are more stable and reliable. They know what they want and are able to maintain long-term focus upon it. They arrange priorities in their life and work, with well-differentiated primary and secondary objectives that are rarely reversed. Statics are more successful strategists than tacticians; they know *what to do much better than how to do it. *




For instance, in the last line there, it would suggest Ji-Se has a stable characterization of the properties desired of the long term, but very little envisioning as to how the long term can/will play out in the sense of dynamic objective activity (Je). 

So I'd say there is some truth to what they are saying, but only if interpreted with a lot of context as to how the static type is likely to proceed. In regards to their fear of "what if's", that is more aptly interpreted in context of what kind of data they use to make stable characterizations of what they want. They do not consider potential data as naturally as kinetic data, which _does_ quite possibly lead to recklessness, or as you call it, impulsive tendencies. Since they are neither accustomed to envisioning the dynamic course of events (their super-id Ni+Te) nor static potential (Ne). They do seek stability of judgment, and that goes along with their Fi dominance. But I'd not go as far as saying their strong point is envisioning how the events will play out. 

On that note, personally I think black box descriptions of functional preferences are bound to not capture the range of ways they can manifest.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I guess it depends on how you choose to type. I don't think you are incorrect as it is a thought that occurred to me a while back as well. Remember that I came to this forum typing as an INTP and the reason I used to justify Ti dominance is exactly my dislike towards Fe. But if you type according to strict function preference, then I am still MBTI INTJ. It just depends on your methodology.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bombsaway said:


> This actually seems pretty IJ-ish IMO. So you have the distant plan but aren't desperate to complete it. You deal with unexpected problems first and plan for them (not necessarily plan in the sense that you pre-empted them and put measures in place to deal with them but more like you've taken them into consideration and adjusted your attitude accordingly). The deadline isn't important but getting it done is (sort of like your attitude to this problem - keep working at it until it's done).
> 
> My approach would be more like, "Oh I haven't wallpapered that room yet." Then I'd make a flawless action plan to get the room done and research the products and buy them then maybe do a third of the room if I'm lucky and then go do something else. I'd probably only finish the room if someone was going to see it. In terms of Personality Typing, I don't keep working at it. It either makes sense or it doesn't. If it doesn't, I distance myself from it so I'm not getting stressed over pop psychology and then come back when I want to and am more relaxed. I guess finishing isn't important to me. I'd live in a state of complete disarray if it didn't a) make my life uncomfortable or b) make me look bad in front of other people (you know you're Alpha SF when..)


You are right it could be IJ, but one could also understand this through Reinin as process vs result. Your attitude is strikingly process to me, so I am not sure how reflective it is of IP as a whole though yes, the laziness of not being able to carry things through after starting a project if you start at all is typical of IP. Finishing in general is such a now or never thing, I think at least for IP process types. If you start you have to finish or you will never finish. 

Though if FreeBeer is a result type and alpha, he has to be rational base since only alpha rationals are result-oriented. Option 2 would be to consider delta and beta quadra since they invert it for the rational and irrational types compared to alpha.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@bombsaway
@ephemereality

Hmmm. I figured something out throught your conversation here.

I used to think I'm a yielding type (even yesterday  this is today's recent discovery)...however my relentless persuit of type and similar endevours seem to point towards being OBSTINATE.

Now, I don't care about everything and I do start stuff I'm not interested in out of boredome or just out of pure outside pressure to do so, which leads to not finishing.

HOWEVER if an idea is important to me I seem to periodically have a go at it. I may not make it due to lack of resources (ideas and information in thecase of typing), but then I always go back to learning and trying to develop and new approach that has better chances of sucess, carefuller review of information, getting more info and more sources, investing more energy.

*This all sounds like I'm improving resources in order to get to where I want to be, if i don't want to be there I'll just drop it, but IF I really want to do something I will eventually suceed because I don't give up on it even if i lack resources initially I'll just keep improving them until i make it.*

Not very good at establishing what I want thou and may rethink endgoals :S


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

I think super ego vulnerable is the trickster (Bebee model)


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> I think super ego vulnerable is the trickster (Bebee model)


I always wonder, are the similarities coincidences? Or was one inspired by the other? 
If they are coincidences, maybe theory is making progress towards a more accurate model (the eight function model)


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

liminalthought said:


> I always wonder, are the similarities coincidences? Or was one inspired by the other?
> If they are coincidences, maybe theory is making progress towards a more accurate model (the eight function model)


This is something that would add more credibility to both models. If 2 theories evolved seperately and arrived at the same conclusions, then its likely that there is something to the function model. 

Imo the two models can be lined up neatly and they do corespond, but I was wrong in my thinking, PoLR is not inferior.

Socionics PoLR is MBTI 7-th function, which makes @Scelerat's asessment correct imo.

The two systems line up and are esentially identical.


----------

