# MBTI Crossover



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

Is it possible to be a Socionics SLI and an MBTI ISTP? I know SLI translates to ISTJ function wise.

I'm definitely more convinced of being an SLI than I am ISTP, but I'm also pretty sure I'm an MBTI SP of some sort.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

MrSmashem said:


> Is it possible to be a Socionics SLI and an MBTI ISTP? I know SLI translates to ISTJ function wise.
> 
> I'm definitely more convinced of being an SLI than I am ISTP, but I'm also pretty sure I'm an MBTI SP of some sort.


You can be anything you want to be baby.  

On a more serious note. Let's say you want to built two robots. You want one robot to do all the tasks an ISTj is competent at and the other one to be ISTp, to do all the things an ISTp is best at. 

So you shop around and decide to buy your parts from a Socionics website. You order the building blocks for your two robots. A few weeks later two packages arrive, one marked ISTj, the other marked ISTp. So you read the instructions, take out the building blocks for the ISTj, examine them and figure out what Ti,Se,Fi,Ne does. You do the same for the ISTp package and figure out how Si,Te, Ni, Fe works. And you slot them into their respective homes inside your robot heads. 

You're pretty pleased with yourself. The ISTj does all the boring stuff you'd rather not do, and the ISTp robot is like a second you. Life is good. 

You call round to a buddy's house and he's built two robots also. Only he bought his building blocks from an mbti website. His istj can do all the things your istj can do. You open up the head and look inside and see that the labels are all different. They seem to be written in Japanese, yet they still work to make the istj competent in doing your tax returns with little to no error. 

The only flaw with your two robots, is when the ISTj is asked to do a task it is unfamiliar with, sparks fly out and it completely shuts down. The same thing seems to happen when the ISTp is asked to display emotions. 

So you're chatting to your buddy about this flaw and he says he has the same problems with his two robots. The Socionics ISTj robot and the mbti istj robot are just no good with Ne. The ISTp and istp are no good with Fe, and that's just the way it is.


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

onion:4461646 said:


> You can be anything you want to be baby.
> 
> On a more serious note. Let's say you want to built two robots. You want one robot to do all the tasks an ISTj is competent at and the other one to be ISTp, to do all the things an ISTp is best at.
> 
> ...


So you're saying an MBTI ISTP is the same as an SLI?


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

MrSmashem said:


> So you're saying an MBTI ISTP is the same as an SLI?


The character traits are the same. They're both badass rebels who like to fix stuff. And the two weaker functions ( Ni, Fe ) are the same. 

The only difference is the two leading functions. MBTI ISTP is said to use Ti, Se. While Socionics ISTp is said to use Si, Te. But when you read how those functions are defined, mbti Ti, sounds awfully like Socionics Te and vice versa. 

It all depends on how you want to look at it really though. If you want to be pedantic about it and take it literally and just focus on the first two functions, then you would say they're not the same. But if you wanted to look at the big picture, you could say they are the same, more or less. I wish I could say it's straightforward, but it isn't, so I can't.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Most MBTI descriptions for the IP types resemble the socionics descriptions for Ips (the equivalent to a MBTI J, function-wise) and vice-versa. If you type someone through dichotomies then those types are actually likely to share their corresponding P/J characteristics. Although, typing through dichotomies can lead to an overall vagueness in typing (even though it's MBTI's typical methodology and the way most people casually into it engage the system). If you want to actually find out more about your cognitive process, which is something that socionics and jungian theory deal with, then you may want to type through functions and there's a link that can be traced between the function definitions in each system. So, even if you are sure you use, for example, Ti and Se, you may still not quite see yourself in a MBTI/Keirsey description. It depends on what you care to learn about.

What @onion pointed out is that both ISTP and ISTJ are bad at Ne and Fe and good at Ti and Si so they are going to look a bit similar. However, socionics introduces the concept of "valued/unvalued" functions and how all eight functions (or "information elements") act in one's psyche and that will create some clear differences between the two types.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

When I figured out INFJ was my MBTI type; it was really confusing because I kept on going back an fourth between INFP and INTP; never understanding why neither one really fit me. When I typed myself as an IEI/INFp; I didn't have that same problem, because IEI is just like the INFJ description minus the irritating J/P part, that always threw me off in MBTI.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

I just came across this in the intj forum. It's an INTp describing the difference between Ti and Te. 
It's a *brilliant *example of how they operate in the real world. It might help you figure things out. 


_Logical validity =/= logical soundness. Argument will never suffice as evidence for us. Argument only serves to better explain that which is already proven or demonstrated unless a subjective premise is being argued (in which case our Fi seems to step in and argue relativism, or we judge it in such a manner that is reminiscent of cost-benefit analysis.) If you attempt to argue a premise that isn't falsifiable, or attempt to demonstrate that something is true through sheer reasoning and nothing else, you wont be taken seriously by Te. 

The main issue is that Ti is never ending. Because it functions as sheer reasoning, there is always a counter argument to be made and that counter is valid so long as it satisfies the premise. As I said however, validity does not equate to soundness, so even if an argument is valid, that doesn't really mean anything to us until we verify it as being true/sound or not. Ti is simply counterproductive to our need for closure. Instead of arguing and arguing and arguing, we'll go outside with test tubes and verify what is being discussed. For whatever reason Ti typically views this sort of thing with disdain (reference something like the philosophy of science which tries to argue that science does not reveal the true 'nature' of 'things.') Inversely, Te views Ti with disdain because it:

1. Doesn't get shit done.
2. Doesn't abide by external, objective standards and is therefore difficult to understand and apply to anything.
3. Does not respond to clear and literal evidence.

We would rather not deal with it because we are more concerned with pragmatism and utilitarianism than ultimate truths anyways.

_


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

onion said:


> I just came across this in the intj forum. It's an INTp describing the difference between Ti and Te.
> It's a *brilliant *example of how they operate in the real world. It might help you figure things out.
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, I'm not sure if that post was meant for me or not but it is really helpful in confirming that I am in fact; a Fe-Ti user. In fact I find, that I often clash with Te users - particularly Fi-Te users because I often take it for granted, that everyone is already in tune to my logical analysis of the situation; without necessarily relying on any external data. I find it annoying and a pointless waste of time to bother with trying to support an argument; which has already proven itself, logically. So, not only does this confirm for me that I am a Ti rather than a Te user; it also clearly explains some of the clashes that I've had with Te types. It tends to be worse with Fi-Te than Te-Fi users because they are far more likely to explain their need for objective evidence; where as SOME - particularly a FEW dominant Fi-Te users, I've come across have gotten really upset and even offended by my use of Ti and incorrectly jumped to the conclusion that I was berating them; when all I was doing was employing Ti reasoning to back up my opinions - not as any kind of personal attack.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> Thanks, I'm not sure if that post was meant for me or not but it is really helpful in confirming that I am in fact; a Fe-Ti user. In fact I find, that I often clash with Te users - particularly Fi-Te users because I often take it for granted, that everyone is already in tune to my logical analysis of the situation; without necessarily relying on any external data. I find it annoying and a pointless waste of time to bother with trying to support an argument; which has already proven itself, logically. So, not only does this confirm for me that I am a Ti rather than a Te user; it also clearly explains some of the clashes that I've had with Te types. It tends to be worse with Fi-Te than Te-Fi users because they are far more likely to explain their need for objective evidence; where as SOME - particularly a FEW dominant Fi-Te users, I've come across have gotten really upset and even offended by my use of Ti and incorrectly jumped to the conclusion that I was berating them; when all I was doing was employing Ti reasoning to back up my opinions - not as any kind of personal attack.


Well I'm glad that helped you. :wink:

I have found the opposite to be true for me. I'm ENFp, so I use Fi and though my Te is weak, I do value it over Ti. I've gotten into quite a few arguments with Ti doms. When I present them with the objective facts and they seem to be blind to them. It drives me crazy. lol.

Ti is my weakest function. I just don't get how someone can choose their own thinking over the obvious objective reality of facts presented to them. But that's just me. Knowing this has definitely helped me to chill. Each to their own.

Edit. According to Socionics, if you're IEI, then Te would be your weakest function. Wow that really cements things for me now too. So that's how inferior Te manifests for an INFp. Cool. :happy:


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

MrSmashem said:


> Is it possible to be a Socionics SLI and an MBTI ISTP?




Especially yes if you are an ISTP by the four-letter code decided by the dichotomies test. 
There are several examples of people I think typed themselves as INTPs by the four-letter code but prefer ILI, for instance, in socionics. 

In MBTI, there's this funny idea that the second function is what introverts use to engage the so-called outer world. I think there is some merit to this idea, actually, despite it not being fully true (in reality, I don't think you can just separate the so-called access of outer and inner data out that way). 
The issues happen though when you suddenly realize --- hey, what the hell about the J-P dichotomy really deals with one's top extraverted function? It's at best an indirect product of, say someone who prefers Fe to Se, that they might answer more "J", but I could just as well argue that they might be really noncommittal and undecided on things. E.g. an INFp has Te-polr and Se-fifth...I can easily see reasons this could correlate many instances of them with answering P-ish on dichotomies tests. 
I think there _are_ characters who do fit the intuitive dominant + J-like mold, but plenty of cases of INFP, INTP who fit Ni-Fe or Ni-Te (and either one --- I can see an Ni-Fe type testing INTP).


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

You totally said @Crossover. 

I'm telling!


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

onion said:


> Well I'm glad that helped you. :wink:
> 
> I have found the opposite to be true. I'm ENFp, so I use Fi and though my Te is weak, I do value it over Ti. I've gotten into quite a few arguments with Ti doms. When I present them with the objective facts and they seem to be blind to them. It drives me crazy. lol.
> 
> Ti is my weakest function. I just don't get how someone can choose their own thinking over the obvious objective reality of facts presented to them. But that's just me. Knowing this has definitely helped me to chill. Each to their own.


This is why I think I'm an ILE in socionics. I identify with being on the opposite side of that argument. Facts mean nothing without a point (argument) behind them. Otherwise it feels like I'm just being handed rocks and told "those are rocks." But why do I care?

Anyway, my point is that I'm still dealing with the differences between the systems, and I simply can't reconcile the two to the point where I identify with the "same" type in each. I hear a lot of conflicting opinions on this, but I'm leaning towards treating them as separate systems, since I've been pretty sure I'm an ENFP in MTBI fro ages, and the socionics descriptions of IEE are really alienating to me.



onion said:


> _Logical validity =/= logical soundness. Argument will never suffice as evidence for us. Argument only serves to better explain that which is already proven or demonstrated unless a subjective premise is being argued (in which case our Fi seems to step in and argue relativism, or we judge it in such a manner that is reminiscent of cost-benefit analysis.) If you attempt to argue a premise that isn't falsifiable, or attempt to demonstrate that something is true through sheer reasoning and nothing else, you wont be taken seriously by Te.
> 
> The main issue is that Ti is never ending. Because it functions as sheer reasoning, there is always a counter argument to be made and that counter is valid so long as it satisfies the premise. As I said however, validity does not equate to soundness, so even if an argument is valid, that doesn't really mean anything to us until we verify it as being true/sound or not. Ti is simply counterproductive to our need for closure. Instead of arguing and arguing and arguing, we'll go outside with test tubes and verify what is being discussed. For whatever reason Ti typically views this sort of thing with disdain (reference something like the philosophy of science which tries to argue that science does not reveal the true 'nature' of 'things.') Inversely, Te views Ti with disdain because it:
> 
> ...


This seems to imply that I am a Ti user, which fits with what I thought, although I'm not clear if this is specific to socionics or not. I have had this argument with Te doms and auxs so many times it's absurd. The question is, do those definitions apply to both systems?


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

@onion @Pancreatic Pandora @bearotter 

The thing is, when I read into Socionics; function breakdowns, descriptions and all, SLI fits pretty dang well, probably better than anything else, MBTI/Enneagram/etc. But when I come over to MBTI, Si/Te doesnt seem to have very much in common with the Socionics Si/Te. Not to mention the MBTI ISTJ description doesn't sound like me at all and I really don't see myself fitting into the SJ temperament either.

If yall want I can post a comparison of the 2 and bold out the stuff I relate to, if that'd help, and you'd be willing to skim through some stuff.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

So you're seeing an incongruence between socionics Si and MBTI Si or so? Why? I understand the descriptions are framed with some different aims as the theories are different, but there are common points too for sure, and a common theme to an extent. 

Temperament doesn't always match up with functions, so I'd separate those things personally, even if MBTI's portrayal of functions will tryyy to make a match happen.

Portrayals of Si linking it to tradition are overblown. Maybe they are imagining an ESFJ or something, whose Fe is guiding Si, and the Fe goes with common traditional notions of value. 

Si is, foremost, sensing, and nobody can change that. So if MBTI ISTJ is portrayed as a stereotypical hated 1w2-6-something with a major stick up their rear, don't use that description is my recommendation.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

onion said:


> Well I'm glad that helped you. :wink:
> 
> I have found the opposite to be true for me. I'm ENFp, so I use Fi and though my Te is weak, I do value it over Ti. I've gotten into quite a few arguments with Ti doms. *When I present them with the objective facts and they seem to be blind to them*. It drives me crazy. lol.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't say that I'm blind to objective facts; rather that they are assumed and need not be explicitly stated. That's what happened anyway in a recent convo that I had with a highly reactive ENFP. Basically, I made a thread reporting what I thought was a bug, based on a missing post that I had made on someone's visitor's wall. I only focused on trying to figure out how my post had vanished - as one specific question that I wanted answered. The ENFP in this case, made incorrect assumptions; which were not based on anything that I had actually stated on my OP. She basically came to the conclusion that the only logical explanation that she could imagine; is that my post had been _intentionally_ deleted by the member, whose wall I had posted on.

I then went on to explain how this theory made no logical sense whatsoever; since everything had been going fine between us and that the member in question; had no reason whatsoever to have objected to my post. She mistook my stridency in logically explaining my position as somehow berating her or something like that. She also chided me for failing to mention - what she deemed to be _important_ information - that a) this member was a friend and b) my post was a response to their post. I tried to calm her down but defended my OP on the basis, that including - in my mind - such extraneous information, wasn't relevant.

Another poster then basically said something very similar but in such a way that fit in with my perception of the situation but only as a _remote_ possibility; rather than slam-dunk fact. This poster was in contrast; an INFJ, like myself; so he _understood_ how my mind worked and how I processed information. Anyway - no great shock to me - my initial implicit premise was confirmed: the member in question had not only NOT deleted my post but never even saw it, in the first place; which confirmed to me, WHY this info was completely irrelevant to my OP: finding out how my post managed to vanish; which I still don't know.

Anyway, I hope that this wasn't too confusing; I just thought of this and how fascinating the whole thing was, after reading the description that you provided of Te vs. Ti. I now know that when dealing with a Te user; I need to make my assumptions, more explicit and not just assume that they instinctively are following my line of reasoning.


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

bearotter said:


> So you're seeing an incongruence between socionics Si and MBTI Si or so? Why? I understand the descriptions are framed with some different aims as the theories are different, but there are common points too for sure, and a common theme to an extent.
> 
> Temperament doesn't always match up with functions, so I'd separate those things personally, even if MBTI's portrayal of functions will tryyy to make a match happen.


Here: 

*Socionics*-_Si is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail.
Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.

In contrast to extroverted sensing (Se), Si is related to following one's own needs instead of focusing on some externally-driven conception of what is necessary to acquire or achieve. So, whereas Se ego types feel capable to evaluate how justified others' preferences are, Si ego types will try to adjust to them in any way possible (given that it does not extremely affect their own comfort), wishing to minimize conflict.

In contrast to introverted intuition (Ni), Si is about direct interaction and unity (or discord) with one's surroundings, rather than abstract process and causal links.

Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals. They like to believe that if activities are done with enjoyment, people will give them more effort and time, and also becoming more skilled at what they are doing in the long run. They believe that goals should suit people's intrinsic needs rather than shaped by the demands and constraints of the external world, and so do not try to force others into doing things they don't want to do. They also try to be easygoing and pleasant, preferring peaceful coexistence to conflict, except when their personal well-being or comfort is directly at stake._

*MBTI*-_Introverted Sensing often involves storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with similar ones.


The immediate experience or words are instantly linked with the prior experiences, and we register a similarity or a difference—for example, noticing that some food doesn't taste the same or is saltier than it usually is.

Introverted Sensing is also operating when we see someone who reminds us of someone else.

Sometimes a feeling associated with the recalled image comes into our awareness along with the information itself. Then the image can be so strong, our body responds as if reliving the experience. The process also involves reviewing the past to draw on the lessons of history, hindsight, and experience.

With introverted Sensing, there is often great attention to detail and getting a clear picture of goals and objectives and what is to happen. There can be a oneness with ageless customs that help sustain civilization and culture and protect what is known and long-lasting, even while what is reliable changes._

Socionics is more about internal harmony. Enjoying yourself, taking care of yourself, not straining too hard, physical sensation. It seems very present focused, without any ties. MBTI is more about storing information to draw on in the future. Comparison and contrast. It seems more past focused, dragging past experiences into the present. I've also read that MBTI Si can manifest in memorizing things like statistics or collecting things.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Yup. Socionics presents the purpose of Si more from the standpoint of physical inner awareness. But notice centrally, there are links one can draw, like reliving subjective experience sensations in full detail to have them inform you as to the present is not at all unlinked to the concept of internalizing sensations. Dynamic IE in socionics exhibit a sense of data between various points in time cascading unto each other to create a more continuous experience, and a unique subjective experience of the current sense data based on Si in this case.


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

bearotter said:


> Yup. Socionics presents the purpose of Si more from the standpoint of physical inner awareness. But notice centrally, there are links one can draw, like reliving subjective experience sensations in full detail to have them inform you as to the present is not at all unlinked to the concept of internalizing sensations. Dynamic IE in socionics exhibit a sense of data between various points in time cascading unto each other to create a more continuous experience, and a unique subjective experience of the current sense data based on Si in this case.


I don't know man, if there is a connection between the 2, it seems very loose to me. I can't really get past how they manifest through the type descriptions either. I know alot of the descriptions out there aren't that great, but there are some decent ones out there that incorporate the functions into them and MBTI ISTJ isn't anywhere close to how I am.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

MrSmashem said:


> I don't know man, if there is a connection between the 2, it seems very loose to me. I can't really get past how they manifest through the type descriptions either. I know alot of the descriptions out there aren't that great, but there are some decent ones out there that incorporate the functions into them and MBTI ISTJ isn't anywhere close to how I am.




Yeah I mean, like I wrote in my intro to the last post / got at in the other one, there's definitely a difference in presentation in the typical sources. Shrugs. 
I am not going to dance around the fact that on direct reading, the connection is loose. I don't tend to get bothered with this because my focus is rarely direct lol. Although I do make an effort at pointing out the differences among various readings for clarity's sake.
I'm not a fan of the "they're TOTALLY DIFFERING THINGS" approach exactly, although it's not an unreasonable claim depending on POV.


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

Ace Face said:


> You totally said @_Cross_over.
> 
> I'm telling!


* @Halcyon
:ninja:


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

How reliable are the general type descriptions on Wikisocion? I say this because I totally relate with the SEI profile, but then it would appear I've had my MBTI reversed the entire time.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Here is my take on reconciling the differing ideas of Si.

First to compare with Se--I don't think Se is necessarily about the five senses whereas Si is about the "inner senses." I think Se is about the objective experience and Si is about the subjective experience/impression. What I mean by this, is let's say we have an Se and an Si trying out skateboards for the first time. They both fall and get some bad scrapes. The Se person can't wait to get back up on the board because of how exhilarating the objective experience was, regardless of his/her subjective experience (injury, pain); whereas the Si person might focus on his/her own pain and how much they dread getting back up on that board again. For the Si person, the personal experience of getting hurt outweighed the objective one of skateboarding. Essentially, Si is oriented by their personal experiences.

I believe that this focus on personal experiences is what enhances their memory and hence why memory is often a descriptor. Memory for details is heightened when we have emotional experiences. For example, most people remember some of the most mundane details in their environment when they first heard that the towers had been hit on 9-11. Everyone's senses were heightened during this emotional time and they can remember things like what they were wearing, what time it was on the clock, what they were doing, what other people in their environment were wearing and doing, etc. The Si user is almost always focused on his/her personal experiences with the environment and I think this is what enhances their memory (especially for sensory details).

Thirdly, I think that the combination of the focus on personal experience and "memory" ties into the archetypes. Essentially, all the introverted functions tie in with the archetypes. I think that Si ties in with archetypes associated with sensory experiences. I think this is where the observation of "past experiences informs the present" comes from. All introverted functions are also abstracted. I think one's specific personal experiences are abstracted into these archetypal ideas that inform the present. Which is perhaps why "tradition" is often associated with Si. These traditions are archetypes. The earlier mentioned skateboarding incident might translate into an avoidance of not only skateboarding, but perhaps other similar experiences such as skiing.

It's an idea I've been working on anyway...


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

@MrSmashem The unifying concept for Si, in my opinion, is the focus on the sensation an object produces in the subject. That includes the more direct sensations, suggested by the object, and the more subjective ones. It has a different focus to Se, which observes objective qualities on their own (temperature, texture, colour, smell, strenght, etc.), and instead relies on the impression it produces on the subject. If you read Jung's Si description (Psychological Types - Wikisocion) it's basically that. So, Si-doms may have objects that evoke certain sensations or "emotions" (perceived as a gut feeling) or that remind them of other experiences they've had. I can picture Myers observing Si types and seeing how they often relate things to the past and saying they "compare present data to the past". Besides, these types generally don't feel a need to search for new experiences (ignored Se) and are likely to stick with the same experiences because they are pleasant and they don't need anything else. And that's where the traditional thing may come from (among other characteristics that work together to make a person seem traditional and conservative like being an EJ or Fe-dom).


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

MrSmashem said:


> Here:
> 
> *Socionics*-_Si is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail.
> Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.
> ...


Yes. You're dead right. They're defined differently. I've read Jung's Personality Types over and over again and how he defined Si, is in line with Socionics, while mbti kind of distorted what Jung meant by Si. Personally I think mbti should just admit they got it wrong. It's the only way to resolve this mess.

Some mbti definitions of Te and Ti: 


_*Extraverted thinking *helps to create order out of chaos. They organize the environment through charts, graphs, outlines, etc. It allows us to pick out what is necessary and figures out the most efficient way to complete an objective. Extraverted Thinkers love a challenge because it attests to their skills. They will almost always follow through with a project.

_

So an ISTJ, with their natural ability to put their affairs in order, will resonate with this definition. 

_"It allows us to pick out what is necessary and figures out the most *efficient* way to complete an objective. Extraverted Thinkers love a challenge because it attests to their skills" 
_ - Whereas an ISTP might resonate with this part. 



_*Introverted Thinking *finds ways to express an idea that is to the point and concise. We analyze, categorize, and evaluate to figure out whether something fits into the larger framework. We figure out the precise problem of an idea or concept and then work to fix it. We often are checking for inconsistencies in the world, and we often take things apart to understand how it works. We use models to see how things should be, and look at both sides of issues to determine inconsistencies._

The Mr.Fix It ISTP will resonate with this definition of Ti, since they tend to take things apart to figure out how things work. Their natural ability to be concise with their words, will also make them think they use Ti based on a description like this. 


I found this explanation on an mbti website for Si. 

_Introverted Sensing: Compares present *facts* and experiences to past experience. Trusts the past. Stores sensory data for future use.
_
To my mind, we don't use our sense perceptions to deal with facts. That's like saying you use your eyes or your tongue to store and compare facts. Here's a fun fact: Snails can sleep for 3 years without eating. So mbti is saying that an ISTJ will take that fact and store with their sense perceptions??? That just makes no sense does it? Obviously the part of your body that deals with facts is always going to be the brain. So it would be thinking of some sort that deals with facts. So that just proves mbti got it seriously wrong when defining the functions and they should just own up to the mistake and stop confusing the western world. But there is so much money at stake with these mbti companies advising big business, I highly doubt the "experts" will be humble enough to come out and openly admit they got this aspect of their typology wrong.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Here is my take on reconciling the differing ideas of Si.
> 
> First to compare with Se--I don't think Se is necessarily about the five senses whereas Si is about the "inner senses." I think Se is about the objective experience and Si is about the subjective experience/impression. What I mean by this, is let's say we have an Se and an Si trying out skateboards for the first time. They both fall and get some bad scrapes. The Se person can't wait to get back up on the board because of how exhilarating the objective experience was, regardless of his/her subjective experience (injury, pain); whereas the Si person might focus on his/her own pain and how much they dread getting back up on that board again. For the Si person, the personal experience of getting hurt outweighed the objective one of skateboarding. Essentially, Si is oriented by their personal experiences.
> 
> ...


I think it's a mistake to blur the lines between sensing and emotions. Sensing by itself is just sensing. Feeling is feeling. You feel with your emotions, you sense with your senses. You think with your brain and you intuit with something mysterious that we haven't fully figured out yet.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Doge said:


> How reliable are the general type descriptions on Wikisocion? I say this because I totally relate with the SEI profile, but then it would appear I've had my MBTI reversed the entire time.


Some descriptions there can be hard to understand, since the translations from Russian are abysmal. The ones that describe facial features for example, I wouldn't take seriously at all. They've put many people right off from the get go. 

I like the site Sociotypes. Socionics Types: SEI-ISFp


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

onion said:


> I think it's a mistake to blur the lines between sensing and emotions. Sensing by itself is just sensing. Feeling is feeling. You feel with your emotions, you sense with your senses. You think with your brain and you intuit with something mysterious that we haven't fully figured out yet.


I think it is a mistake to equate emotions to feeling.

According to Jung, emotions are part Sensation and part Feeling:



> Affect
> 
> 
> By the term affect we understand a state of feeling characterized by a perceptible bodily innervation on the one hand and a peculiar disturbance of the ideational process on the other [5]. I use emotion as synonymous with affect I distinguish—in contrast to Bleuler (v. Affectivity)—feeling from affect, in spite of the fact that no definite demarcation exists, since every feeling, after attaining a certain strength, releases physical innervations, thus becoming an affect. On practical grounds, however, it is advisable to discriminate affect from feeling, since feeling can be a disposable function, whereas affect is usually not so. Similarly, affect is clearly distinguished from feeling by quite perceptible physical innervations, while feeling for the most part lacks them, or their intensity is so slight that they can only be demonstrated by the finest instruments, as for example the psycho-galvanic phenomenon [6]. Affect becomes cumulative through the sensation of the physical innervations released by it. This perception gave rise to the James-Lang theory of affect, which would make bodily innervations wholly responsible for affects. As opposed to this extreme view,* I regard affect as a psychic feeling-state on the one hand, and as a physiological innervation-state on the other; each of which has a cumulative, reciprocal effect upon the other, i.e. a component of sensation is joined to the reinforced feeling, through which the affect is approximated more to sensation (v. Sensation), and differentiated essentially from the state of feeling.* Pronounced affects, i.e. affects accompanied by violent physical innervation, I do not assign to the province of feeling but to the realm of the sensation function (v. Function).


The point was not to equate emotions to sensing. The focus was on one's personal sensory experience. Emotions, being part sensational, would play a significant role in that.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> I think it is a mistake to equate emotions to feeling.
> 
> According to Jung, emotions are part Sensation and part Feeling:
> 
> ...


Yeah I can agree with that.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

onion said:


> Some descriptions there can be hard to understand, since the translations from Russian are abysmal. The ones that describe facial features for example, I wouldn't take seriously at all. They've put many people right off from the get go.
> 
> I like the site Sociotypes. Socionics Types: SEI-ISFp


It looks like the description is in line with the primary type pages, though the ones on males and females of a type and the subtype pages look sketchy indeed. I think the site is even referenced on the Sociotype description.
The social roles may be a more behavioral thing, but on that part I thought I seemed more like SEI than ILE. Maybe those more familiar with my posts think I'm far more the latter than the former - cognitive tests and opinions here suggested Ne dominance rather than Si.


----------

