# Broken English Yekaterina Filatova's Socioninics test (have fun)



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

^^ here you go guys. Lol I test as ILI on this one lamo. Have at it yarrr! :crazy: I think despite being mentally INTj I behave like MBTI ISFP. This makes sense in terms of type 6 and needing everything to make perfect logical sense all teh time, despite my emphasis on ethics and living according to values.

WTF THE WEBSITE CAN NOT BE LINKED LOL

just google www. s o c i o n i k a s k o l a .lv


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

Link's not working. 

and INTj?


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

You're not an ILI.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Inguz said:


> You're not an ILI.


>D yeah I know that but I'm not ESI either. Something is definitely wrong in socionics. The data makes no sense and until it makes ABSOLUTE logical sense I am not giving up on trying to find my type.

Not a rational dom and not extroverted either, I don't care how and in what way anyone tries to rationalize away inductive reasoning preference and general irrational cognitive tendencies: I AM IP and pretty much screw everyone's stereotypical bullshit about neat and clean vs messy which has no place in either theory.

The theory has to meet reality perfectly, because it is supposed to be an explanation of reality. There should be no IJ preference in Fi-Se-Ni-Te ESI, yet there is and its irritating, that one detail and its one of the MAJOR 4 Jungian dichotomies does not fit in my case..which means one thing, if there is no flaw in the theory: I am not ESI.

<.< well either that or I recommend rewriting the IP vs IJ in socionics. How come MBTI gets it right, even the inferior Te thing? Whats the deal with socionics? Seriously? Major goddamn inconsistent & illogical pain in the ass.

Fuck I'm in the grip -.- great...stupid brain dead theory makes no goddamn sense.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> >D yeah I know that but I'm not ESI either. Something is definitely wrong in socionics. The data makes no sense and until it makes ABSOLUTE logical sense I am not giving up on trying to find my type.
> 
> Not a rational dom and not extroverted either, I don't care how and in what way anyone tries to rationalize away inductive reasoning preference and general irrational cognitive tendencies: I AM IP and pretty much screw everyone's stereotypical bullshit about neat and clean vs messy which has no place in either theory.
> 
> ...


The Ti is weak in this one. (that means IEE


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Inguz said:


> The Ti is weak in this one. (that means IEE


:3 haha explain to me just how is my Ti weak. Make it nice and simple so my low Ti self can comprehend. I can understand the logical structure all I want as long as it does not correspond to observable data in reality its just 'brain fart", unless you can create it in reality, however we aren't making something here, we are observing cognitive functioning.

Te over Ti any day baby. There is no believing in ghosts, god or ESI being IJ without the evidence and complete logical breakdown of how it all makes sense and functions imo for example. Theory is nice, but testing and validation of theory is a requirement for certainty.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> >D yeah I know that but I'm not ESI either. Something is definitely wrong in socionics. The data makes no sense and until it makes ABSOLUTE logical sense I am not giving up on trying to find my type.
> 
> Not a rational dom and not extroverted either, I don't care how and in what way anyone tries to rationalize away inductive reasoning preference and general irrational cognitive tendencies: I AM IP and pretty much screw everyone's stereotypical bullshit about neat and clean vs messy which has no place in either theory.
> 
> ...



Sssh, just come to the alpha quadra. Accept your SEI-ness. :tongue:

I jest, I jest. 

I was stuck between a couple of those cards on the test. I didn't relate to any completely. There were several cards I could be and none of them were SEI.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> :3 haha explain to me just how is my Ti weak. Make it nice and simple so my low Ti self can comprehend. I can understand the logical structure all I want as long as it does not correspond to observable data in reality its just 'brain fart", unless you can create it in reality, however we aren't making something here, we are observing cognitive functioning.
> 
> Te over Ti any day baby. There is no believing in ghosts, god or ESI being IJ without the evidence and complete logical breakdown of how it all makes sense and functions imo for example. Theory is nice, but testing and validation of theory is a requirement for certainty.


I have personally had lots of success using socionics to my benefit. One example of this is learning how to get along with my mother's husband, an LSE, my conflictor. In that interaction I now think about not expressing alternative viewpoints or expressing the stupidity of something unless backing it up with clear and consecutive logic. In addition I also ignore what I consider to be his narrow-mindedness.

When it comes down what I see, it is that many people find use for the theory and can apply it in their every day life, perhaps it is time to question your own understanding of the theory rather than the theory in it self. However, you're inquisitive and diligent, so I have no doubt that you'll get there eventually. (And this is also me saying that your conceptual understanding of the theory is lacking at the moment, i.e. weak Ti.)


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Inguz said:


> I have personally had lots of success using socionics to my benefit. One example of this is learning how to get along with my mother's husband, an LSE, my conflictor. In that interaction I now think about not expressing alternative viewpoints or expressing the stupidity of something unless backing it up with clear and consecutive logic. In addition I also ignore what I consider to be his narrow-mindedness.
> 
> When it comes down what I see, it is that many people find use for the theory and can apply it in their every day life, perhaps it is time to question your own understanding of the theory rather than the theory in it self. However, you're inquisitive and diligent, so I have no doubt that you'll get there eventually. (And this is also me saying that your conceptual understanding of the theory is lacking at the moment, i.e. weak Ti.)


 aww you are probably right. Plus today was stressful and I'm on edge with MBTI Te right now. Best think it through again later.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> <.< well either that or I recommend rewriting the IP vs IJ in socionics. How come MBTI gets it right, even the inferior Te thing? Whats the deal with socionics? Seriously? Major goddamn inconsistent & illogical pain in the ass.


MBTI doesn't get it right either. Under MBTI I'm supposed to be a Judging type, which means following schedules and having a neatly organized room and yadda yadda but my behavior is unplanned and my desk and room are a mess more often than not. I think about a couple steps ahead that that's it, can't follow a schedule for even one day. 

I ignore the judger-perceiver and rational-irrational dichotomies now. They don't fit well with the reality of people. The static-dynamic dichotomy in socionics was the most useful for telling IJ vs IP apart from what I could tell.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

Yeah...I don't speak Russian, Latvian or broken English so...


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> MBTI doesn't get it right either. Under MBTI I'm supposed to be a Judging type, which means following schedules and having a neatly organized room and yadda yadda but my behavior is unplanned and my desk and room are a mess more often than not. I think about a couple steps ahead that that's it, can't follow a schedule for even one day.
> 
> I ignore the judger-perceiver and rational-irrational dichotomies now. They don't fit well with the reality of people. The static-dynamic dichotomy in socionics was the most useful for telling IJ vs IP apart from what I could tell.


What are you typing as?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Inguz said:


> What are you typing as?


as INFJ in mbti


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> as INFJ in mbti


And in socionics you are what, undecided?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Inguz said:


> And in socionics you are what, undecided?


IEI, as voted in type consensus poll in my signature
which means judger in MBTI and irrational in Socionics


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> IEI, as voted in type consensus poll in my signature
> which means judger in MBTI and irrational in Socionics


I suppose it's hard to not write more than three characters.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Inguz said:


> I suppose it's hard to not write more than three characters.


123 uff


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@cyamitide

MBTI Si and Ni dom/aux preferring people are planned out and structured for different reasons and in different ways. 

SJ's prefer the known to the unknown and the predictable to the unpredictable, in both cases the latter causing anxiety..they implement structure and short term plans in order to cope. They are routinized and control the environment to minimize unexpected events, which are uncomfortable and stress provoking due to how Si works.

NJs on the other hand reliy on forecasting (farsighted) and have a "chart the course" approach to things, which is dissimilar to SJs. Ni-Se makes them messy, however they can suffer Se overload which is stressful, so they apply forecast planning in order to avoid such things. Think of it in terms of playing chess and you needing to be a few moves ahead of your opponent. NJs tend to be messy, lack external organization & routine, BUT they do plan ahead, sometimes many years in advance and set goals to reach. 

In contrast to these NPs and SPs prefer to deal with sudden events and unforeseen things due to Ne & Se preference. This makes them adaptable. Of the 2 NPs tend to be more routinized and SPs the most spontaneous due to their function makeup.

*NJs are NOT routinized. orderly, neat or clean. They are farsighted and apply a chart the course approach. *

[HR][/HR]

Yeah, but how can you just ignore it? Its one of the major Jungian dichotomies.  to me this is something to figure out. Imo socionics is not Jung anymore and not MBTI either. *Its cognitive relationship dynamics.*

The socionics sensing IEs aren't the Jungian functions and not the MBTI functions either.

*For example MBTI Se is direct experience with the 5 senses:* rubbing your hand across the bark of a tree and feeling the texture is Se. Se-Ni works because se takes in information as it is in the moment and then lets it go, which means it gathers a lot of details that Ni then makes sense of by cutting away at irrelevant content to reach the center.

*Now socionics Se has nothing to do with this:* authority, influence, desire, political interest/personal investment, competition/struggle, willpower, impact, force, appearance, readiness, tactics, territory. a mobilized state full of vitality and energy or implied strength; the desire to make strong, bold, and powerful movements.

Its power dynamics, willpower, assertiveness, knowing who has power and how to relate to it, how to use it and so on.

*Striking similarity between MBTI Fi and socionics Fi:*

In the MBTI FI is the function that leads you to be in harmony with subjective values and thoughts. This means the user lives, behaves according to their subjective values. That is kind of it. If you google what subjective values are, then you'll understand fully. *Its basically the same as:*endearment, closeness, moral satisfaction, and emotional sensitivity; deep personal conviction that may produce moral firmness and resolve; love, hatred, or disgust for others. like/dislike, decency and niceness, morals, good/bad, etiquette, humanism, attraction/repulsion, empathy, compassion, attitude towards other human beings, how others are treated, think about other's humanity "let's hear his side," judgements determined by people doing things.

*What I have observed is that while the rational functions are similar or the same in both systems, only the intuitive irrational ones are the same. Sensing irrational is defined differently and makes no sense under MBTI.*

*MBTI Si for example:* Introverted Sensing: Compares present facts and experiences to past experience. Trusts the past. Stores sensory data for future use.

This is like when you are cooking something and taste it, but you realize it doesn't taste like you usually make it and from there you figure out what to do with it so it does. This function is why Si valuing people prefer routine and things that are known to them. it gives them metal comfort and they can relax. Unexpected and unknown events get them out of their comfort zones precisely because they do not have a mental map of how to deal with these upon which Si can rely. Developing that map through the experience is what Si does and the first experience is stressful, the preference is to avoid in favor of the known. Its why inferior Ne makes sense for them and why Si doms tend to worry so much when things are unpredictable.

*Socionics Si in the other hand is this*: a physically relaxed and comfortable state free of irritants; enjoying the pleasure of the moment. harmony, pleasure, health, comfort, pleasantness, satisfaction, convenience, quality, cosiness, aesthetics

Neither makes much sense in MBTI terms.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_FreeBeer_,

That's basically why I advocate a self-image which isn't derived out of a single model. I get so sick of these idiots on PerC praising one model over another, like one is any "better" than another. That's just stupid and missing the whole point of all this bullshit by a mile.

What you do is, you go through and learn Enneagram, and figure out your Enneagram type; okay that's one piece of the puzzle, set it aside.

You go through and learn Big 5, and figure out your SLOAN type; okay that's another piece, set it aside.

You do this with MBTI, and Socionics, and Jungian functions, set it all aside.

Now you have this big pile of information, and the _worst thing you can do_ is try to make it all fit together. Trying to figure out where each model overlaps and has in common is just a downright awful way of progressing at this point. I see these people trying to figure out "the one true model" attempting to fuse models together, figure out that's true about one model based on what's true about another - hell, I get accused of that myself and it just makes me laugh that people misinterpret what I'm saying to mean I advocate that when I think it's the stupidest thing ever.

Instead, think of the "true you" as being something that transcends any one system or model, and that you are never going to find a model that can completely encompass who you are. Instead, each model is like a warped fun-house mirror - or a single shard of glass through which you get a limited and inherently flawed view of yourself.

What you do is look at each model as a signpost, and each model points in a general direction. When you can see a pattern in that they are all pointing in the same general direction, you get an idea of what you really are _apart_ from all these systems. It takes a bit of intuition and some imagination though. You can't just rely on these models for an accurate self-image.

That's why I can read all the basics about Socionics and go, "Yeah, I'm an ILI." And everyone quacks and freaks the fuck out because "bitch you ain't nothing like an ILI." Well, lol, whatever. It doesn't matter. The limitations of Socionics as a single system mean, frankly, Socionics is bullshit. However, so are all the other systems out there, so that's okay. ILI is my best fit in Socionics because I've taken about half a dozen other tests and already have a pretty good idea of who I am that lets me pin-point myself and my deeper values really quick in _any_ bullshit made up make-believe system of values.

Who gives a shit what some stranger on a website or some random test has to say about you anyway? Christ, I'm almost 31 years old, lol. I don't expect some kids on the net (let alone a damn script) without much life experience (or any at all if it's just a computer program) know what they're talking about for a heartbeat. People think they're wise because they read about human personality in a _book_ or off some fucking website. Lmfao, I'm thinking to myself, "are these people for real?" I take the stupid shit people have to say here who will try and tell you about yourself based on a fucking handful of forum posts with a huge grain of salt and do my own damn homework. I trust no-one. Not even me.

Of course, this didn't come easily. I had to study the shit out of Jung, and not just his functions, but his archetypes, theory of complexes, the collective unconscious, his (by far the most important contribution by him) theory of personas, and everything else he wrote up until he died. I had to study the shit out of MBTI, to figure out how far it has gone in favor of dichotomies that have very little to do with the Jungian functions at all anymore (especially with Step II, MBTI basically flips the bird to the Jungian functions at this point, favoring the Big 5 multi-dimensional approach). Big 5 is yet another can of worms, and you gotta learn all about that for sure because you are going to learn about the Big 5 when/if you take any depth psychology classes once you get to college. And enneagram is just useful because it's very simple and easy to learn and helps in figuring out your type within these other models.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Abraxas

The point of it was/still is to try and understand why I do what I do and most importantly: *What do I want and for what reasons? Because this more then anything else seems to elude me.* The point isn't to find a label, but to understand myself.

I understand others just fine without all of this and there is no point in having labels or titles or whatever for their own sake.

My self image is compiled in abbreviations across different systems in my signature. This is what I have found to be consistent regardless of what approach I try at getting to know myself. Ofc, its only natural to question everything, however I learn through exchange of information and ideas better. I don't know why, but keeping things to myself feels like I'm isolating and limiting my perspective to ONLY MINE. To me basing something only on what I think feels (exceptions are values, morals, ethics, feelings and principles) limited, lonely, boring and very final. It feels like the end, a very uneasy end that I can't really trust and I don't want there to be an end. I hate endings.

What was I talking about? Oh right, I know who I am and how I am, just not what I want and why I want it. Deciphering the mystery of the self.

*Its like I'm a 5 year old who can't stop asking "Why?"*


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

I feel _much_ better after reading some of these comments.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> What was I talking about? Oh right, I know who I am and how I am, just not what I want and why I want it. Deciphering the mystery of the self.



_"One day, according to an Eastern story, the gods decided to create the universe. They created the stars, the sun, the moon. They created the seas, the mountains, the flowers, and the clouds. Then they created human beings.At the end, they created Truth.

At this point, however, a problem arose: where should they hide Truth so that human beings would not find it right 
away? They wanted to prolong the adventure of the search.

''Let's put Truth on top of the highest mountain'', said one of the gods, 
''Certainly it will be hard to find it there''.

''Les's put it on the farthest star'' - said another.
''Let's hide it in the darkest and deepest of abysses''.

At the end, the wisest and most ancient god said - ''No, we will hide Truth inside the very heart of human beings. In this way they will look for it all over the Universe, without being aware of having it inside themselves all the time''.
_


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> @_Abraxas_
> 
> The point of it was/still is to try and understand why I do what I do and most importantly: *What do I want and for what reasons? Because this more then anything else seems to elude me.* The point isn't to find a label, but to understand myself.
> 
> ...


I didn't mean that I don't consider the point of view of others as a source of input, but that I never let it be the final word on my own opinion. In the end, it comes down to what I think is right, and whatever I agree with. I don't give other people any authority in that sense. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that's all it is - an opinion. If it is an opinion I've never heard before, I'll ask why they hold that opinion to get more information on their point of view, to see if there's anything new to it that I hadn't considered. However, often I don't have to do this because the context of their opinion makes it obvious why they hold it, so I can dismiss it because the contexts affords them little reason to have an opinion at all, you see?

In fact, like you, I'm also like a 5 year old who can't stop asking why. It's just, whatever other people tell me the answer is just _their opinion._ If I decide I agree with it, it becomes _my opinion_ at that point. I guess there's a sense that I am taking responsibility, you know? Like, "owning it." "I've decided that this is true, so it's my fault if I'm wrong."

As a kid I never stopped pestering my parents with "why, why, why." No matter what they said, "why?" Because there's this fundamental part of me which doesn't just _trust_ anything. I'm skeptic. I'm full of doubt. I want to know more. I always have this nagging feeling that I'm missing some piece of something, or that I haven't learned enough to make a hard choice.

Even when I give an opinion about something, and I speak with a very firm voice or a very decisive tone, it is only because that's the kind of way of speaking that people respect. It's not because I'm actually stone-cold set in my opinion. It's just a device for getting people to listen to what you have to say. It's also a kind of test, you see? Because if they just agree right away with me based on the authority in my voice, well, then, they're kind of weak-minded or weak-willed, and that says something about them which I take into consideration. If someone debates me, that's a sign of independence and I respect that as long as they have something to say that I haven't already heard and considered.

The truth is, there is no truth. That's what I believe deep down inside. Truth is just a conceptual device people employ to convince themselves that they ought to feel conviction about something. As I once heard it put, "logic the art of being wrong with confidence." That's really how I look at the world, and this is coming from a philosophy minor, so let me tell you, I've thought about it a lot. Fundamentally, I believe in paradoxical axioms like, "the best way to tell a lie is to be honest." People just believe in whatever they want to believe _because the belief is a tool to motivate them to do something as a result of their belief._ I subscribe to a bit of "chaos magick theory" in that respect. The only _real_ belief that I claim for myself is the meta-belief that "belief is a tool." And in that respect, _everything is a tool._ Words, people, objects, ideas - all things which can be said to exist in my paradigm of reality are defined by what they _do_ - they are a means to an end, which is itself a means to another end, and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

That is, imo, the essence of Ni-Te. A dynamic vision of _all things_ that exist manifesting through a continuum of space and time only insofar as they _cause the continuum to exist._

See the whole flowing dynamic process of all existence like that for a moment.

One thing creates a ripple, the ripple changes the water, the water changes the air around it... the butterfly effect unfolds through time. All things exist as part of a sequence of events. An idea is defined by every other idea that has come before it, which gave rise to it, and which it, in turn, shall give rise to in the future. Everything is part of a process that is taking place at every level, from the quantum all the way up to the conscious. Everything effects everything else, causes everything else to effect everything else, and so on... and so on... and so on...

Whatever meaning exists in all of that is absolutely _transient_ and exists only within a particular place, at a particular time, due to particular sequences within particular systems. "Love" is simultaneously every event that takes place during it's existence, as much as it is the _infinitesimal moment_ when one consciously recognizes that it exists - a moment that is _so fleeting_ that it cannot even be properly recognized. The moment you know it, it has already passed and only exists abstractly - for indeed, it always was abstract and cannot be contained to a single moment... or even an infinity of moments. We arbitrarily say to ourselves and to the world, "I'm in love now! I love this person! I love myself! I feel love!" Yet, the truth is so much more profound.

Here we are. We are the stuff of stars. We are the universe. I am the universe. We "sit" here, ourselves, as all that exists, pondering ourselves and what we are, re-inventing ourselves into every possible variation. Here we are, pure information. Love? Love existed since the moment of the first conceptual beginning - the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the beginning of love itself, which came to exist as the result of everything that happened before and after the Big Bang.

Where does love begin? Where does it end? It is infinite. All things are infinite. When does the self begin and end? When does the Sun begin and end? What defines a thing within space and time? These things, these "definitions" - they are totally arbitrary. They exist _because they serve a purpose._ Nothing more. Facts are _tools._ Nothing more. All _"things"_ are tools. Nothing more.

_A thing is what it does._

_If it works, it is true._


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> @_cyamitide_
> 
> MBTI Si and Ni dom/aux preferring people are planned out and structured for different reasons and in different ways.
> SJ's prefer the known to the unknown and the predictable to the unpredictable, in both cases the latter causing anxiety..they implement structure and short term plans in order to cope. They are routinized and control the environment to minimize unexpected events, which are uncomfortable and stress provoking due to how Si works.


The preference for the known and the predictable is same for NJs as it is for SJs. The only way that Ni is able to extrapolate past trends, is by referring back to the past and connecting it to something familiar in the present moment to predict how things will spin into the future. If you place an NJ into a completely new environment, their ability to predict will be gone, null, void, and they will feel insecure and helpless. Avoidance of unpredictable scenarios is not property of SJs only -- NJs will avoid completely novel to them situations, which is reflected by the mentions of "conservatism" in some of the IEI and ILI profiles, the Gulenko one for ILI mentions for example: "This leads to conservatism and passivity in your life."



FreeBeer said:


> NJs on the other hand reliy on forecasting (farsighted) and have a "chart the course" approach to things, which is dissimilar to SJs. Ni-Se makes them messy, however they can suffer Se overload which is stressful, so they apply forecast planning in order to avoid such things. Think of it in terms of playing chess and you needing to be a few moves ahead of your opponent. NJs tend to be messy, lack external organization & routine, BUT they do plan ahead, sometimes many years in advance and set goals to reach.


They both engage in "forecasting" only that SJs forecast along a "physical continuum" and draw connection between things are material and tangible. This is how the "caregivers" in socionics are able to provide preventive care to the "child-like" types, and "aggressors" care for the "victims" in a very similar way: they are able to predict or anticipate their discomforts, sensations, lack of resources, and so forth, and cover for it. NJs don't have this kind of predictive ability, or rather that they do but it's very weak (which in the first place makes N-types seem as helpless and needing care or protection for the "caregiver" and "aggressor" types respectively).



FreeBeer said:


> NJs on the other hand reliy on forecasting (farsighted) and have a "chart the course" approach to things ...


The carefree-farsighted dichotomy includes only INxx-ESxx types as farsighted in socionics. ENTjs and ENFjs don't appear to be very "farsighted" to me -- I often feel like they are wasting too much energy for nothing or acting without thinking things through.



FreeBeer said:


> In contrast to these NPs and SPs prefer to deal with sudden events and unforeseen things due to Ne & Se preference. This makes them adaptable. Of the 2 NPs tend to be more routinized and SPs the most spontaneous due to their function makeup.


Yes, that's how I see it. NJs have weak ability to orient in unpredictable situations, no matter our intuition, and as a result we can fall into restricted and conservative routines. Which is where SP types are of much help to NJ types because they bring variety, spontaneity, and freshness into our lives.



FreeBeer said:


> *NJs are NOT routinized. orderly, neat or clean. They are farsighted and apply a chart the course approach. *


The degree of order someone needs over their environment doesn't seems to strictly abide by either MBTI J/P nor socionics j/p dichotomies.


> Yeah, but how can you just ignore it? Its one of the major Jungian dichotomies.  to me this is something to figure out. Imo socionics is not Jung anymore and not MBTI either. *Its cognitive relationship dynamics.*


In can be discounted in my opinion for many different reasons :tongue:

First being that any type is both judging and perceiving type as the same time. In your ego, you have both one rational and one irrational function, so you're capable of both kind of attitudes: the disorderly, associative irrational approach, and the orderly, organizational, rational approach.
Fi-Se is both a judger (Fi) and a perceiver (Se)
Ni-Fe is both a judger (Fe) and a perceiver (Ni)
etc.
And it doesn't matter what divides MBTI and socionics create -- every person will flip between these their judging, rational and their perceiving, irrational functions thus combining both kinds of traits.

Ascribing either only rational or irrational characteristics to types therefore doesn't work because it doesn't present the full, the complete picture, that every type holds both rational and irrational features. This is the first reason that this dichotomy can be ignored -- it is a false either/or dilemma.

Second reason is that it is environmentally variable. When I was in school, I lived a more structured lifestyle because I needed to turn in my assignments on time, I needed to come on time to lectures and exams, otherwise I wouldn't have passed my classes. In the summer though I did whatever I wanted because I could afford to live a free life :happy: so it turns out that the judger-perceiver dichotomy, as it is conventionally defined, is too dependent on the current circumstances of one's life. 

Another reason: the influence of one's enneagram type cannot be ignored either. I saw this publication from enneagram institute which showed that several types score low on "openness to experience", including type 1,6,9 and receive low adaptability scores. Considering this, it would be easy for someone of these types to convince themselves of being a Judger, going off the usual list of J-traits.

I had a few other reasons for why the Judger/Perceiver traits are not an accurate method of typing anyone, including yourself, but as I was writing the above I forgot them 

I prefer the static-dynamic dichotomy myself for differentiating Ji-egos from Je-egos. It makes a lot of sense and is way less contradictory than the Judger/Perceiver or Ratoinal/Irrational.



FreeBeer said:


> The socionics sensing IEs aren't the Jungian functions and not the MBTI functions either.
> *For example MBTI Se is direct experience with the 5 senses:* rubbing your hand across the bark of a tree and feeling the texture is Se. Se-Ni works because se takes in information as it is in the moment and then lets it go, which means it gathers a lot of details that Ni then makes sense of by cutting away at irrelevant content to reach the center.


That's a different discussion from the j/p one.

In my view, the elements that are most similar in their descriptions are the logical ones: Te/Ti, while the elements that are most dissimilar are Se and Si. When someone types themselves in MBTI and Socionics conserving their Te/Ti preferences while picking different Sensing properties (for example ISTP in MBTI and LII in Socionics) I think this is workable and believable, but when someone picks completely different types like ENTP in MBTI and ILI in Socionics there is potentially something very wrong with how they understood and applied these typologies.



FreeBeer said:


> *Now socionics Se has nothing to do with this:* authority, influence, desire, political interest/personal investment, competition/struggle, willpower, impact, force, appearance, readiness, tactics, territory. a mobilized state full of vitality and energy or implied strength; the desire to make strong, bold, and powerful movements.
> 
> Its power dynamics, willpower, assertiveness, knowing who has power and how to relate to it, how to use it and so on.
> 
> ...


Which is why when someone types as INFP in MBTI and ESI in Socionics I have no qualms about it, since the sensing elements are defined sufficiently differently that they may not be able to relate to the same set. It's cases like ENTP-ILI or INFP-IEI that look way off.



FreeBeer said:


> *What I have observed is that while the rational functions are similar or the same in both systems, only the intuitive irrational ones are the same. Sensing irrational is defined differently and makes no sense under MBTI.*


I've made the same observation so I fully agree with this.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Test result: Critic - INTP


----------



## Rainbow (Aug 30, 2010)

To op, drop psychology.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Rainbow said:


> To op, drop psychology.


Why? Explain plz. While I did finish psychology, I did not enjoy the lack of certainty and relying on too much theorizing, not enough concrete evidence for a lot of theories and sometimes just flat out not knowing why something is happening, just that it is. It always felt to me like a very incomplete science where theories upon theories are thrown at phenomena with very little actual testing to gather data, try and disprove it.

Self report tests are overused imo and they are completely unreliable. You can't rely on the subject to give an accurate account. The phenomena has to me measured in other ways imo, by neuroscience.

It has been dropped 3 years ago for more tangible subjects. I do not enjoy nor work well with ambiguous theory driven subjects that lack practical, concrete & realistic approaches. They seem to only frustrate me.

Helping people is also not my cup of tea, I prefer to fix machines, troubleshoot and to solve problems. Comforting should be done by someone more capable of emotion and compassion then I.


----------



## Rainbow (Aug 30, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> Why? Explain plz. While I did finish psychology, I did not enjoy the lack of certainty and relying on too much theorizing, not enough concrete evidence for a lot of theories and sometimes just flat out not knowing why something is happening, just that it is. It always felt to me like a very incomplete science where theories upon theories are thrown at phenomena with very little actual testing to gather data, try and disprove it.
> 
> Self report tests are overused imo and they are completely unreliable. You can't rely on the subject to give an accurate account. The phenomena has to me measured in other ways imo, by neuroscience.
> 
> ...


You have just explained why. You seem frustrated by it, perhaps it's not for you


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Rainbow said:


> You have just explained why. You seem frustrated by it, perhaps it's not for you


 well yeah, thou regardless I think we gained something useful from all of this. Imo as @cyamitide stated if you are a sensor in MBTI, you don't really have to be one in Socionics and vice verso, since Socionics doesn't understand Si and Se the same way as MBTI.

This is why some ENFPs I know score as SEE, but aren't sensors. @KookyTookie this would be something to consider, but I really don't want to confuse you  I'm already very confused lol.

Based on my current expose  and reasons for abandoning psychology....I clearly am a MBTI sensor, either ISFP or ISTP.

Ne and Ni are still understood the same way so socionics intuitives are more likely imo to be MBTI intuitives.

@cyamitide In case you come back from retirement, considering my ISP status, I can say that while I am not inclined to behave like NJs, I do appreciate how they set goals to reach and how they end up providing guidance and focus for my all the time very random and impulsive tendencies. I need and enjoy that kind of structure, without it I'm lost doing many things at once with no focus in life and I am usually more inclined to think like NJs under stress, when everything goes to hell and I can't find "the road" such as lately.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> This is why some ENFPs I know score as SEE, but aren't sensors. @_KookyTookie_ this would be something to consider, but I really don't want to confuse you  I'm already very confused lol.


Yeah, it is kind of confusing. I've just come to accept that I'm never going to be able to squeeze myself into a box, no matter how hard I try. 

After becoming rather frustrated with it all, my SO (who fits the ILI/INTp/INTJ box), told me that I was probably taking it all too literally and that it was unlikely that I was ever going to find the perfect system. He explained that type systems are an attempt to classify something naturally occurring into groups; and that naturally occurring things are usually distributed on a bell curve (see below).









Each type is the average (highest point) of a single bell curve and people within it are spread out along it; so most people within the type will be close to the average, and the closer you are to the average, the more accurate the model and the predictions it makes will be. The people who are far enough away from the average (center) will probably fall closer to the center of a different bell curve, and therefore, have a different type.

The above diagram illustrates the probability that you will fall into a given section of the curve. MBTI is sort of like a 4-dimensional grid with 16 bell-curves. So, typology systems are useful for predicting the average trends (those that fall within the center of the curve). However, humans are complex creatures. Personally, I highly doubt that there will ever be a system that manages to incorporate all the different variables. My SO always tells me, "the value of a model is in the accuracy of the predictions it makes, if you add enough variables, you can get pretty close." This is one reason why I think MBTI fails, it's just too simple, not enough variables. Socionics is a little more appealing simply because it is a much more detailed system. Still, as this thread illustrates, it is, by all means, far from perfect.

Wow, that hurt my head. :bored::crazy:


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@KookyTookie

:kitteh: yupp! Thx for the info! Fully agree. *throws you an aspirin.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> Yeah, it is kind of confusing. I've just come to accept that I'm never going to be able to squeeze myself into a box, no matter how hard I try.
> 
> After becoming rather frustrated with it all, my SO (who fits the ILI/INTp/INTJ box), told me that I was probably taking it all too literally and that it was unlikely that I was ever going to find the perfect system. He explained that type systems are an attempt to classify something naturally occurring into groups; and that naturally occurring things are usually distributed on a bell curve (see below).
> 
> ...


I agree, yet I don't. I think it's not even about it being a bell curve being able to predict type, as much as it has to do with one's conceptualization of type. For instance, how do you attempt to type yourself? Based on what criteria? In socionics and to a degree also, the MBTI, the core idea is psychological. It tries to explain your psychological makeup. There is thus a general tendency among people to always fall within said spectrum and I have honestly yet to engage someone who is not a child that doesn't seem to have at least one preference. 

So when it comes to trying to type oneself, the method is extremely important and how one understands type in general. Do you see it as an expression of your psyche or do you see it as an attempt to fit yourself into a system utilizing various tools like Reinin etc? 

I think the idea of type actually becomes less strict and more fluid if one sees it purely from the idea of being a conceptual construct of your psychological making. It creates room and freedom because all it does to infer is how you _think_, but never once does it make claims about how you _act_, because how people act can have many sources. 

Now, there are general and observable trends where we can draw correlations between how people think and how that thinking infers their actions, but they are just that, correlations. When looking at type, I think it is good if one can thus understand it the way Jung understood it because then type will honestly make more sense. Type is about how you think and nothing more. It has to do with your own psychological inner workings solely.


----------

