# World Socionics NT Descriptions



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

Here are the new profiles for the Researchers (NT):

 Logical Intuitive Integrator (LII) 

Intuitive Logical Integrator (ILI) 

 Logical Intuitive Energiser (LIE) 

Intuitive Logical Energiser (ILE)


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Still think y'all have Fi muddled with Fe lol.


----------



## selena87 (Aug 15, 2014)

Thanks a lot, this is interesting, but the links to ILI and ILE are mixed up.


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Still think y'all have Fi muddled with Fe lol.


How so?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

worldsocionics said:


> How so?


Although introverted ethics and extroverted ethics often are called Fi and Fe from MBTI terms, they're still Ethics, not Feeling. In common tongue, "feel" is used in different alternative definition ways. Everything associated with emotions/"feelings" is Fe in Socionics. However, all the Fi descriptions on blog, including the base Socionics blogs and my long comments with the Author in EII blog, have heavy undertones of emotions/"feelings". As opposed to basically all other elements throughout the blogs, including Fe, there seems to be no underlying, independent definition of Fi behind the descriptions. In contrast, the underlying definitions of Ti are very well and clearly defined. The authoritative definition of Ti, combined with the ascription of Fe into the definition of Fi, gives the impression of strong and valued Ti, weak and valued Fe, and weak and unvalued Fi. This is perfectly fine and normal. However, even the word "abstract" has a very clear and well-defined definition. The blogs need one for Fi as well, or all usage of it will come across as a pseudo science with wishy-washy terms and descriptions similar to MBTI ones, while the rest comes across as more legitimate and informative.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

worldsocionics said:


> How so?


How goes the test?


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Although introverted ethics and extroverted ethics often are called Fi and Fe from MBTI terms, they're still Ethics, not Feeling. In common tongue, "feel" is used in different alternative definition ways. Everything associated with emotions/"feelings" is Fe in Socionics. However, all the Fi descriptions on blog, including the base Socionics blogs and my long comments with the Author in EII blog, have heavy undertones of emotions/"feelings". As opposed to basically all other elements throughout the blogs, including Fe, there seems to be no underlying, independent definition of Fi behind the descriptions. In contrast, the underlying definitions of Ti are very well and clearly defined. The authoritative definition of Ti, combined with the ascription of Fe into the definition of Fi, gives the impression of strong and valued Ti, weak and valued Fe, and weak and unvalued Fi. This is perfectly fine and normal. However, even the word "abstract" has a very clear and well-defined definition. The blogs need one for Fi as well, or all usage of it will come across as a pseudo science with wishy-washy terms and descriptions similar to MBTI ones, while the rest comes across as more legitimate and informative.


Logic and Ethics are both kinds of Rationality i.e. Judgements. Out of those, Logic is the External, Detached sort i.e. objective and impersonal. Ethics, on the other hand, is the Internal, Involved sort i.e. subjective and sentimental. As such, Ethics necessarily involves 'feeling'. This can be a Static Field i.e. a set attitude towards something or someone, or it can be a Dynamic Object i.e. our emotional states. The former is Socionics Fi or Relations, the latter is Socionics Fe or Emotions.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Question though, is this an independent interpretation? Or is it citing any sources? Of Ausra's work specifically? Not the theory or information elements itself...but many sources seem to refer to some common profile definitions which I find to be inaccurate, what is their source and do you have a common source with them or is it your interpretation (which seems to be way more clear). 

what do you think about quadras and relationships?


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

While we're at it, what do you think of Reinins?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Still think y'all have Fi muddled with Fe lol.


Modern MBTI websites have Fi muddled with Fe.

Fi and Fe are both ethical functions, so they fulfil similar purposes and could be confused for one another.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

worldsocionics said:


> Logic and Ethics are both kinds of Rationality i.e. Judgements. Out of those, Logic is the External, Detached sort i.e. objective and impersonal. Ethics, on the other hand, is the Internal, Involved sort i.e. subjective and sentimental. As such, Ethics necessarily involves 'feeling'. This can be a Static Field i.e. a set attitude towards something or someone, or it can be a Dynamic Object i.e. our emotional states. The former is Socionics Fi or Relations, the latter is Socionics Fe or Emotions.


Impersonal/Sentimental is not External/Internal. Sentimental, by definition, is emotions. Detached/Involved is not External/Internal. Nor is this even a possible dichotomy, as all elements must, by definition, apply both to oneself and to others.

Te and Fe are objects.
Te and Fe are dynamic.
Te and Ti are external.
Ti and Fi are fields.
Ti and Fi are static.
Fi and Fe are internal.

The one comparison between Fe and Fi are no further apart than any of the other comparisons.

You seem to be trapped in some form of odd hyperbole, where you arrive to the conclusion that feelings are ethics by knowing ethics are not objective and are incapable of conceiving that anything else besides objectivity and feelings exists. Feelings are Fe. Fi is something different. You cannot have static feelings, because feelings are strictly dynamic. I can "feel" productive, which is Te. I can "feel" logical, which is Ti. I can "feel" a person out, which is Ne. I can "feel" the wind in my hair, which is Si. Not only are most of your usages of words incorrect, but they are also highly discriminatory against themselves. You seem incapable of any definition or comprehension of Fi that isn't, explicitly and concretely, Fe.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Impersonal/Sentimental is not External/Internal. Sentimental, by definition, is emotions. Detached/Involved is not External/Internal. Nor is this even a possible dichotomy, as all elements must, by definition, apply both to oneself and to others.
> 
> Te and Fe are objects.
> Te and Fe are dynamic.
> ...


How do you look at Fi? Internal statics of fields- what is the internal of a field?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

tangosthenes said:


> How do you look at Fi? Internal statics of fields- what is the internal of a field?


Comparisons of Internal Parts of Objects within a Field. Perceptions done by Se for knowing the external qualities manifested by the internal parts or by Ne for the direct view of internal parts.

The same thing Ti does, but with the internal, subjective, implicit, and, largely, theory of the mind aspect of objects. The Ne (internal static) of fields.

Not really sure how the logic kept going back to observer. Fe is internal (subjective) dynamics of objects, yet is responsible for the observer's usage of mastery over Fe to dynamically change the internal states of objects. Similarly, Ne is subjective, but responsible for perceptions of the internal subjective states of others. If a definition of Fi involves that it can only be applied with the observer included, then it is an incorrect definition, as Fi must be applied to fields outside of the observer, or that aspect of reality is unaccounted for.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Comparisons of Internal Parts of Objects within a Field. Perceptions done by Se for knowing the external qualities manifested by the internal parts or by Ne for the direct view of internal parts.
> 
> The same thing Ti does, but with the internal, subjective, implicit, and, largely, theory of the mind aspect of objects. The Ne (internal static) of fields.
> 
> Not really sure how the logic kept going back to observer. Fe is internal (subjective) dynamics of objects, yet is responsible for the observer's usage of mastery over Fe to dynamically change the internal states of objects. Similarly, Ne is subjective, but responsible for perceptions of the internal subjective states of others. If a definition of Fi involves that it can only be applied with the observer included, then it is an incorrect definition, as Fi must be applied to fields outside of the observer, or that aspect of reality is unaccounted for.


I always imagined this as regarding the stable sense of sympathy/antipathy an Fi base can perceive in the environment, but since I'm not Fi base, I don't see how the base IE goes beyond this. Is it more than how people are draw to or against each other?

Internal statics of fields, well obviously fields are realms of interaction, and internal is going to mean hidden from the eye in this respect, where the focus is on things that remain constant or can be represented as being constant. The natural conclusion, I think, is what I mentioned above but idk exactly.

Ne may be a good counterpoint, since it's of bodies. It would give you a structural sense of the object itself, where Fi would give you a structural sense of the environment. Both from non-"explicit" or obvious things. Ti, then, is the obvious stuff. But not all Ti stuff is obvious.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@tangosthenes

What you are describing are some of the derived manifestations of the information elements, which, if I understand correctly, are, at that point, referred to as information aspects.

What I am describing is the root information element that the information aspects are derived from. In reality, all of reality can be divided up into information aspects. If there is a word for it, then it should be able to be ascribed to an information element and, thus, become a descriptor of a manifestation of that information element: an information aspect.

Due to jargon that was translated, the information elements are not clearly defined to the English speaking world. I have been introspecting on them for around a couple of months now, and have somewhat developed a graphical representation for them. I don't do I.T. work anymore, so I will just describe them.

All objects have an external form. All objects have an internal form. We can represent the external as an opaque balloon. The internal can be represented as a mass of 3D Tetris blocks. By changing the shape of either the external or the internal, the other is also changed. Though they are two separate things, they both together make up the same whole, and their forms, though not directly 100% identical, are close enough that we can somewhat grasp the form of one by knowing the form of the other.

With this in mind...

Se: External form and qualities of an object
Ne: Internal form and qualities of an object
Te: External movement and external changes of an object
Fe: Internal movement and changes of an object
Ti: Comparisons of objects externals to other objects externals
Fi: Comparisons of objects internals to other objects internals
Si: Changes to objects externals from interaction between objects
Ni: Changes to objects internals from interaction between objects

For some examples, Fe would have all those little Tetris blocks floating around inside the balloon, and the balloon slightly changing form as a result. If this movement is fluid and harmonic, the balloon would be "happy." If this movement is a clash of pieces against themselves, the balloon would be "stressed," as the balloon's internals are being made to fight themselves. When these movements are stopped, and there is no motion, the snapshot of the current internal pieces and their orientation amongst themselves would be Ne. If the Ne of one person is such that the Ne of another would allow the two to fit together like a puzzle piece, knowing this is a good fit would be Fi, or the "psychological distance" or internal attraction between the two. If the two have an external shape that would allow them to fit together externally like building blocks, this would be Ti. Etc.


Another thing that I see throughout all available resources is a mistake that undermines most of the entire theory: Something is an Object or a Field. The concepts of Bodies and Fields was borrowed from Physics, but part of this concept seems lost in translation... In physics, all bodies are fields and all fields are bodies. The only difference between the two is the frame of reference. The argument of objectivity vs subjectivity is laden with misuse of both words. The difference between objectivity and subjectivity is only the frame of reference through which bodies and fields are viewed. In short, without getting to deep into words, half of the arguments and uses of words concerning these terms are opposite of what they even mean. An atom is an object, but it is also a field of objects that compose it. The solar system is an object, but it is also a field of objects. A person is an object, but is also a field of objects. A society is an object, but is also a field of objects. The only difference between the two is the frame of reference. This is not a simple concept, nor does provable/empirical vs unprovable/"sentimental" have the slightest thing to do with most of what is referenced by some people.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Jeremy8419 said:


> @tangosthenes
> 
> What you are describing are some of the derived manifestations of the information elements, which, if I understand correctly, are, at that point, referred to as information aspects.
> 
> ...


IAs are before reality proper, IEs are IAs in type. Will edit more in a second.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

tangosthenes said:


> IAs are before reality proper, IEs are IAs in type. Will edit more in a second.


Ah. Yes, thank you for the correction.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@tangosthenes

A scenario from common fiction can be used...

Cartoon of two people, and inside their heads are a bunch of smaller people operating the brain control center. Bill has some little frail guys in his head. Tom has big juiced up guys in his. Bills ability to sense Tom's little guys is Ne. Bill doesn't think his little guys will fair well when put together with Tom's big guys. This comparison is Fi. Tom sees a scrawny Bill. This perception is Se. Tom knows he is bigger than Bill and his body can easily beat up Bill's body. This comparison is Ti. Bill slips on a banana and falls over. This dynamic between Bill and the Banana is a change in the field that Tom sees, and it is Si. This event of odd dynamics causes Tom's big guys to all move around to process it, and the big guys moving around is laughter. This is the dynamics of the internals and is Fe. Etc.

Laws are also objects. If an object is placed against this Law object, a comparison is made. This is Ti. If one places the internals (it's essence) of the Law object against the internals of another object, a comparison is made. This is Fi. If a law says don't spray paint a wall, Ti will not spray paint the wall. The law is the law. Ti can use a paint roller. Fi says, the internals of that law compared to the internals of spray painting are near identical to the internals of that law compared to the internals of any painting. Fi does not spray paint nor use paint at all. This is what morality is.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Jeremy8419 said:


> @_tangosthenes_
> 
> What you are describing are some of the derived manifestations of the information elements, which, if I understand correctly, are, at that point, referred to as information aspects.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with you about this last thing, I sat down and tried to start deriving socionics from its "metaphysical approach" as I think you can call this certain theoretical backing...either that or "system" socionics. The object/field thing is a giant glaring issue. It is pretty much why you have to take this 3-dichotomy conception of things with a grain of salt and move on with lessons learned outside of the scope of the model.

At the end, you say it's not a simple concept- so you believe there is a saving grace?

As to your story post, you think Fi is capable of measuring people up intellectually? Or in another frame of reference, with whatever quality is needed to win the struggle/goal/day?

If Ti is external comparisons, and Ne is perception of internal objects, how do Ti and Ne mesh up in your mind? or Se and Fi? Is there more disjointedness of aims? Or do they flow together just as well as when the internal/external dichotomies match up?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

"I see where you're going with this, but I prefer to think of structure within something as free-floating sparks of energy that impart certain qualities based on their level of activation, as opposed to tetris blocks." You could think of them as such for thoughts/memories, since they are basically sparks. The point of them being Tetris blocks, is that it shows they can fit together in a certain way, which then together have a set of nooks and crannies and juts that can fit together to a high degree or low degree with someone else's similar setup. It's a graphical representation to show how someone, statically, can have their internals match up well with someone else's at any given point in time. Some of these pieces could be the person's religion, educational background, their relationships with parents, etc. If the parts that fit with your parts are more prominent and towards the outside of your internal model, this may make them fit better at that time. On the flip side, this is a snapshot, and their parts may move due to emotions and at that point in time may not match up well.

"Form should be qualified here, I think. Just what is form? How can I distinguish it in my everyday thinking? This is base perception, correct? Simply using the mind to perceive as it was developed to perceive, no frills and no (necessary) unsightly effort. I say no necessary effort because there is a part you can think of as just how we perceive objects baseline, going about our lives, instinctively-Se and Ne would provide their respective external or internal impressions, but it would all seem like the ONLY way to see things to the person. As opposed to effortful perception, where there is feedback between many functions and you get, for example, what Ne in MBTI is asserted to be-creative mental action."

Form meaning it's shape. The Se being somewhat indicative of the Ne, and vice versa. For example, a ripped dude probably has a lot of internal blocks concerning exercise and appearance, and his total form of his blocks together probably have those blocks towards the exterior. In contrast, EII/LII probably don't have many of those pieces and they are likely buried under other ones. In the balloon example, we can Call Ne pieces spheres and Se pieces Pyramids. Se pieces all towards the outer part of the internals makes the balloon look like a mace. Ne pieces all towards the outer part cause the balloon to look like a lumpy sphere.
This is base perception, yes. It's final usage and abilities would be determined by what function it occupies. Objects can be viewed as objects or as fields of objects. Your primary perception function would be your default as to which you would see, but you still have the other ones. You just don't spend much time on the other ones, so they are also weak.

"I can't say I like or understand that description of Fe but I like the description of Ne, I think you might win friends with that one.
I assume about Ti, you mean literal building blocks(like if people could be concrete, Ti would make them into a pillar-non-metaphorically)? Or is there a failure of concrete vs abstract language here?"
Back to your analogy of sparks... If all these little sparks are moving around and brightening and dimming, all dynamic and fluid... You'd have a fire. If it increased pace, you would have the metaphorical "fire of passion". If they all burst outwards at the walls of your balloon, you'd have "an explosion of anger."
Again, all objects are fields and all fields are objects. If the intent is to make the explicit shape of one thing arrange with the explicit shape of another, it is Ti. You can write a sentence many different ways. You can write one to explicitly, word for word, mean one thing, or you can write it to say one thing but imply another. If you perceive objects as objects/single entities, or if you view objects as a field of objects, you either structure them together from the standpoint of them being objects/single entities (Ti) or as fields of objects (Fi).
Norway is a country, an object. Uganda is a country, an object. Each, as an entity, has external properties and descriptions, e.g., rich and underpopulated, or poor and overpopulated. But you can also view these objects, these wholes, as fields, a collection of parts. From here, you can try and place them together as single objects (Ti) or as fields of objects (Fi).
At this point, if you follow, you should be able to tell that all of this is exactly as the first tests you ever took explained... Preferences.

"At the end, you say it's not a simple concept- so you believe there is a saving grace?
They say the best way to learn is by teaching, and via talking to you, I also have placed my thoughts a bit better. In doing so, after one of my last few posts, I came to a conclusion. This is not a pseudoscience. This is physics. An actual, factual, physics categorization and classification of the mind. The original developer, Augusta, simply didn't have enough physics background (nor do I) to complete the process and make Socionics a legitimate science.

"As to your story post, you think Fi is capable of measuring people up intellectually? Or in another frame of reference, with whatever quality is needed to win the struggle/goal/day?"
I think Fi compares the implicit and Ti the explicit. They will yin/yang indefinitely as time passes. Fi is there to compare from the "sum of parts are objects" standpoint and Ti from "objects are sum of parts" standpoint. You either judge the spots left between explicit rules, or you judge the points within implicit rules. Once that Ti paints the wall, Fi will set the law as No Painting. Once Fi doesn't paint that wall, Ti will set the law as All Paint But Spraypaint Allowed.

It would be effortless, as it's just the flip side of the coin. You know what the form inside the balloon is if you look on the outside. You know what the outside will look like from seeing the form of the inside. You'd just be a wee bit off. But your External shapes would end up looking more as you want them to. So it would be a give and take.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

An example/quiz I spent the last 30 minutes or so thinking up:

There is a pile of bricks and something is being done to them. Are you watching this be done or are you doing it? Are you focused on what the doer is doing or on the bricks? Some bricks are damaged and a piece of one rolls off the pile. Is this a brick or a piece of a brick? The bricks are going to be stacked. Is the whole pile stacked into a single stack or are the broken pieces stacked separately?

Explained:

There is a small pile of bricks and something is being done to them. Are you watching this be done or are you doing it (irrational or rational)? Are you focused on what the doer is doing or on the bricks (objects or fields)? Some bricks are damaged and a piece of one rolls off the pile. Is this a brick or a piece of a brick (Ne or Se)? The bricks are going to be stacked. Is the whole pile stacked into a single stack or are the broken pieces stacked separately (Fi or Ti)?
You're either judging or perceiving primarily. You're focused on the object or the field primarily. If you are Se, you see the external broken piece of a brick; it's not a brick, it's a broken brick. If you are Ne, well the internals are still the same, so "a brick's a brick." If you are Ti, well you aren't going to make a stack of bricks and pieces of bricks (even though it was just "a bricks a brick"). If you are Fi, you have a "stack of bricks". So even though you can see them as objects when viewed on an object by object basis, you either see them as a structure of objects or a structure of fields.


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

nichya said:


> Question though, is this an independent interpretation? Or is it citing any sources? Of Ausra's work specifically? Not the theory or information elements itself...but many sources seem to refer to some common profile definitions which I find to be inaccurate, what is their source and do you have a common source with them or is it your interpretation (which seems to be way more clear).
> 
> what do you think about quadras and relationships?


These are original profiles, created in affiliation with World Socionics Society. They are deliberately not based on the profiles already online but are put together from personal observations and inference from theory, along with guidance from people of the relevant types.

Quadras are a very important part of Socionics and a crucial way of telling types apart. Specific relations should carry some truth and can be observed in real life examples, although empirical research is needed to make their descriptions accurate.


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

Ixim said:


> While we're at it, what do you think of Reinins?


Mostly incorrect. The actual dichotomies mathematically exist, but the definitions and descriptions assigned to them vary from inaccurate to the opposite of what they should mean. There is work going on to change the definitions so that the Reinin dichotomies can actually be useful rather than contrary for trying to type people.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

"There is work going on to change the definitions so that the Reinin dichotomies can actually be useful rather than contrary for trying to type people." Then that isn't a reinin dichotomy, it's a worldsocionics dichotomy.

"empirical research is needed to make their descriptions accurate"
You can't empirically prove a theory of the mind with anything short of neuroscience.


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Impersonal/Sentimental is not External/Internal. Sentimental, by definition, is emotions. Detached/Involved is not External/Internal. Nor is this even a possible dichotomy, as all elements must, by definition, apply both to oneself and to others.
> 
> Te and Fe are objects.
> Te and Fe are dynamic.
> ...



The dichotomies that Aushra came up with for describing the eight Information Metabolism Elements are:

1. External/Internal
2. Detached/Involved
3. Rational/Irrational
4. Field/Object
5. Static/Dynamic

As such, Ethics as a kind of Rational information, would be Internal and Involved. That means that all Ethics manifests internally i.e. in the minds of people and involvedly i.e. they 'feel' it. Consequently, the things in your head that you feel are called 'feelings' so Ethics is essentially our feelings.

Now, you seem to have an idea of feelings where it is just the Dynamic, flowing emotional affect e.g. I feel happy. However, I would also class our Static, set attitudes and relations of closeness with other people as feelings e.g. I trust this person or I am attracted to X or I hate X. Both are necessarily 'felt' and both necessarily occur within our minds. 

Similarly, Sensation is 'felt' (Involved) but occurs outside our minds (External). Intuition is 'not felt' (Detached) and occurs inside our minds (Internal). Logic is 'not felt' (Detached) and occurs outside our minds (External).


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Comparisons of Internal Parts of Objects within a Field. Perceptions done by Se for knowing the external qualities manifested by the internal parts or by Ne for the direct view of internal parts.
> 
> The same thing Ti does, but with the internal, subjective, implicit, and, largely, theory of the mind aspect of objects. The Ne (internal static) of fields.
> 
> Not really sure how the logic kept going back to observer. Fe is internal (subjective) dynamics of objects, yet is responsible for the observer's usage of mastery over Fe to dynamically change the internal states of objects. Similarly, Ne is subjective, but responsible for perceptions of the internal subjective states of others. If a definition of Fi involves that it can only be applied with the observer included, then it is an incorrect definition, as Fi must be applied to fields outside of the observer, or that aspect of reality is unaccounted for.


The definitions do allow for kinds of information outside the observer. For instance, someone with strong Relations will be able to interpret people's set attitudes and relations to each other. They can focus on information that isn't internal to them but internal to others.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

"That means that all Ethics manifests internally i.e. in the minds of people and involvedly i.e. they 'feel' it. Consequently, the things in your head that you feel are called 'feelings' so Ethics is essentially our feelings."

Ti is inside your mind.

P.S. - 5 dichotomies means 32, not 16, personality types. You're very clearly derping through all of this.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

worldsocionics said:


> These are original profiles, created in affiliation with World Socionics Society. They are deliberately not based on the profiles already online but are put together from personal observations and inference from theory, along with guidance from people of the relevant types.
> 
> Quadras are a very important part of Socionics and a crucial way of telling types apart. Specific relations should carry some truth and can be observed in real life examples, although empirical research is needed to make their descriptions accurate.


Yes, although I am an INFP (MBTI) and clearly Fi-Ne user I feel that beta quadra fits me like a glove while I can not find much in common with delta, to be honest I even have an aversion to some points of delta. It is not like I am in limbo either, beta quadra feels like it was written for me while I am not at all carried by delta. Anyhow, so likewise, it might be the descriptions that are available which I believe are not really consistent with profiles and I am guessing is highly influenced by enneagram observations. I have also read how the theory is developed according to the function interactions but it just does not relate to my own experience or my observations of others. I do however find inter relationships to be accurate. I was wondering if you have attempts for those points, I would love to hear more


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> @tangosthenes
> 
> A scenario from common fiction can be used...
> 
> ...


Laws are not supposed to be objects. They are supposed to be fields themselves. For instance the laws of physics are consistent relationships between all physical events.


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> "That means that all Ethics manifests internally i.e. in the minds of people and involvedly i.e. they 'feel' it. Consequently, the things in your head that you feel are called 'feelings' so Ethics is essentially our feelings."
> 
> Ti is inside your mind.
> 
> P.S. - 5 dichotomies means 32, not 16, personality types. You're very clearly derping through all of this.


Ti exists external to the mind. Any structure or rule or law in reality e.g. the laws of thermodynamics, your genetic code, even mathematics etc is Ti. Sure, I can think about Ti, but it doesn't originate in my head. I have to abstract from it in order to hold the idea of Ti in my head.

A good demonstration: if you take three pencils and line them up in a row, you have an example of Ti in front of you. 

No, there are different dichotomies in Socionics for different things. They don't simply multiply together to create new types (that only happens in MBTI). After all, some are deduced from eachother. You cannot have something that is Rational and External but Involved for instance.


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

nichya said:


> Yes, although I am an INFP (MBTI) and clearly Fi-Ne user I feel that beta quadra fits me like a glove while I can not find much in common with delta, to be honest I even have an aversion to some points of delta. It is not like I am in limbo either, beta quadra feels like it was written for me while I am not at all carried by delta. Anyhow, so likewise, it might be the descriptions that are available which I believe are not really consistent with profiles and I am guessing is highly influenced by enneagram observations. I have also read how the theory is developed according to the function interactions but it just does not relate to my own experience or my observations of others. I do however find inter relationships to be accurate. I was wondering if you have attempts for those points, I would love to hear more


Well, Quadra values are necessarily linked to the IMEs e.g. Fi, Ne in Socionics. To be a Delta means that you Value Fi and Ne (and Te and Si). To be a Beta means that you Value Fe and Ni (and Se and Ti). So, if you find yourself identifying more with the Beta Quadra (if accurately described), then it means you are identifying yourself with Valuing Fe, Ni, Se and Ti. Otherwise, you wouldn't relate to Beta.

However the cognitive functions of MBTI are not the same as the IMEs of Socionics, despite being called similar names. It is perfectly permissible to have Fi Ne in one and Value Ni Fe in the other.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

nichya said:


> Yes, although I am an INFP (MBTI) and clearly Fi-Ne user I feel that beta quadra fits me like a glove while I can not find much in common with delta, to be honest I even have an aversion to some points of delta. It is not like I am in limbo either, beta quadra feels like it was written for me while I am not at all carried by delta. Anyhow, so likewise, it might be the descriptions that are available which I believe are not really consistent with profiles and I am guessing is highly influenced by enneagram observations. I have also read how the theory is developed according to the function interactions but it just does not relate to my own experience or my observations of others. I do however find inter relationships to be accurate. I was wondering if you have attempts for those points, I would love to hear more


P=p. Introverts conscious is focused internally and unconsciously focused externally. MBTI shows a person's extroverted (external) judging function. MBTI is showing your Demonstrative then Ignoring, because that is the external facet of you that people readily perceive. The rest is MBTIs version of "fill in the blank."

Long story short: Dominant = Leading, because neither original author answered this, and it assumed due to Dominant being in spot 1 and Leading being in spot 1. Dominant actually = Demonstrative, and the descriptions of the functions of MBTI compared to Socionics are different. MBTI combines things to account for the lack of the missing 4 functions. Augusta recognized this while developing model J and subsequently corrected it with Model A.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

worldsocionics said:


> Well, Quadra values are necessarily linked to the IMEs e.g. Fi, Ne in Socionics. To be a Delta means that you Value Fi and Ne (and Te and Si). To be a Beta means that you Value Fe and Ni (and Se and Ti). So, if you find yourself identifying more with the Beta Quadra (if accurately described), then it means you are identifying yourself with Valuing Fe, Ni, Se and Ti. Otherwise, you wouldn't relate to Beta.
> 
> However the cognitive functions of MBTI are not the same as the IMEs of Socionics, despite being called similar names. It is perfectly permissible to have Fi Ne in one and Value Ni Fe in the other.


Aren't they though based on Jung's functions? That is actually the exact spot I have been trying to pinpoint.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

"Laws are not supposed to be objects. They are supposed to be fields themselves. For instance the laws of physics are consistent relationships between all physical events."

Singular version of "laws" is? A noun. A single object.

There are only 3 dichotomies that create an IM. External/Internal, Statics/Dynamics, and Bodies/Fields; 2^3=8.
The 4th dichotomy is Rational/Irrational, and places one of two (2^4) ahead of another.
The rest are DERIVED. They are derived from a combination of multiple IMs. Rational/Irrational is derived as well.
We are talking about individual IMs, not combinations of IMs. There is no Rational, External, and Involved IM, because Involved is not a descriptor of an IM, but one of a combination or independently chosen subset of IMs.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@nichya

"Aren't they though based on Jung's functions? That is actually the exact spot I have been trying to pinpoint"

Socionics is based on Jung. MBTI applies an additional condition that Jung did not, which is J/P=Extroverted J/P. Jung said someone could be E/I, S/N, T/P, J/P, all independent of each other, to determine one's dominant function, and then their auxiliary function. MBTI says that the combination of E/I and J/P determines the dominant function. As stated previously, MBTI consequently removed any clear distinction between functions to have this seem correct.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> @nichya
> 
> "Aren't they though based on Jung's functions? That is actually the exact spot I have been trying to pinpoint"
> 
> Socionics is based on Jung. MBTI applies an additional condition that Jung did not, which is J/P=Extroverted J/P. Jung said someone could be E/I, S/N, T/P, J/P, all independent of each other, to determine one's dominant function, and then their auxiliary function. MBTI says that the combination of E/I and J/P determines the dominant function. As stated previously, MBTI consequently removed any clear distinction between functions to have this seem correct.


I mean the functions such as Ne, I understand MBTI's take might be different and so is socionics. To be honest, the descriptions I have read on socionics information elements -under- types seemed more like they removed the clear distinctions between functions. But yes I think MBTI polarizes and focuses on a combination of dominant 2 functions and weakest as a group. Yet...both are base on Jung's functions -and- for a fact I know I am Fi & Ne, perhaps very dominantly, so how can I be the exact opposite of this? a Fe subtype in socionics most likely INFj and ENFj. Well your statement "conscious is focused internally and unconsciously focused externally." refers to this? Am I unconsciously focused externally and that would be Fe???

well I do oppose to the switch as you know but I have always discredited descriptions but functions as independent elements, based on Jung's. that is the one thing I hold on to ) I love picking things apart so my questions are actually just intended to bring out more support for the claims and ideas, and question more, not discredit them


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

nichya said:


> Aren't they though based on Jung's functions? That is actually the exact spot I have been trying to pinpoint.


Loosely inspired. The definitions for Socionics are more rigorous. Consequently there are some differences and even more with conventional MBTI.


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> "Laws are not supposed to be objects. They are supposed to be fields themselves. For instance the laws of physics are consistent relationships between all physical events."
> 
> Singular version of "laws" is? A noun. A single object.
> 
> ...


You can also describe a relationship as a noun, doesn't make it an object because it is necessarily based on the relation between objects. Any law is the same in this regard.

I think it wrong to say that there are only 3 dichotomies. External Statics of Fields, for instance, could just as easily be Detached Statics of Fields, or Detached Statics of Rationality. It just so happens that you only need 3 of the 5 to make 2^3. That doesn't undermine the possibility of using another 3. Even if some are derived and others are basic, the actual designation of what is basic and what is derived can be arbitrary. After all, 2+2=4 is just as evident as 4-2=2.

I also think it incorrect to say that the Detached/Involved dichotomy does not describe IMs. It describes IMs as much as External/Internal does and is crucial for telling apart Logic and Intuition from Sensation and Ethics.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

worldsocionics said:


> You can also describe a relationship as a noun, doesn't make it an object because it is necessarily based on the relation between objects. Any law is the same in this regard.
> 
> I think it wrong to say that there are only 3 dichotomies. External Statics of Fields, for instance, could just as easily be Detached Statics of Fields, or Detached Statics of Rationality. It just so happens that you only need 3 of the 5 to make 2^3. That doesn't undermine the possibility of using another 3. Even if some are derived and others are basic, the actual designation of what is basic and what is derived can be arbitrary. After all, 2+2=4 is just as evident as 4-2=2.
> 
> I also think it incorrect to say that the Detached/Involved dichotomy does not describe IMs. It describes IMs as much as External/Internal does and is crucial for telling apart Logic and Intuition from Sensation and Ethics.


A society is an object. An atom is an object. A galaxy is an object. These are all also fields. The only difference is frame of reference. Comparing two objects within a field as objects is Ti. Comparing two objects in a field as fields is Fi.

"That doesn't undermine the possibility of using another 3"
The 4th one, Rationality, isn't a dichotomy of information elements; it is a dichotomy for the ordering of information elements in the mind. Having "another 3" for information elements would mean that there would be 64 distinct information elements.
What you are attempting to describe is a grouping of multiple information elements, not individual information element properties.
Applying another dichotomy to individual information elements, with 4 as each half of the dichotomy, and it being unique, would mean you renamed an already existing dichotomy.

Detached/Involved is not a real dichotomy, nor is it possible without it being a rename or derived, e.g., based upon more than one information element, and thus not applying to an independent information element.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

nichya said:


> I mean the functions such as Ne, I understand MBTI's take might be different and so is socionics. To be honest, the descriptions I have read on socionics information elements -under- types seemed more like they removed the clear distinctions between functions. But yes I think MBTI polarizes and focuses on a combination of dominant 2 functions and weakest as a group. Yet...both are base on Jung's functions -and- for a fact I know I am Fi & Ne, perhaps very dominantly, so how can I be the exact opposite of this? a Fe subtype in socionics most likely INFj and ENFj. Well your statement "conscious is focused internally and unconsciously focused externally." refers to this? Am I unconsciously focused externally and that would be Fe???
> 
> well I do oppose to the switch as you know but I have always discredited descriptions but functions as independent elements, based on Jung's. that is the one thing I hold on to ) I love picking things apart so my questions are actually just intended to bring out more support for the claims and ideas, and question more, not discredit them


Sorry it took a while to reply. Was busy, and I have difficulty reading your writing.

Socionics is the correct system. MBTI determines function stacking based upon the types' extroverted functions. Jung did not do this. If you were E/I, S/N, or T/F, then that's what you were. He also partially described J/P saying that J would be T/F and P would be S/N. Your secondary function would be the opposite of the first. This is how socionics determines function stacking. MBTI states that J/P only applies to someone's first extroverted preference of J/P. Their reasoning by this is that function stacking is inverted for introverts. The inversion of Socionics is Demonstrative > Ignoring > Mobilizing > Suggestive > Vulnerable > Role > Creative > Leading, which would mean Demonstrative = Dominant and Ignoring = Creative, J=j and P=p. Introverts are consciously focused on internal world and unconsciously focused on external world. MBTI is concerned with how people behave in the external world. Introverts external world is the id block.

To compensate for the incorrect function stacking of MBTI and only displaying 4 out of 8 spots of the psyche, MBTI combines functions.
Fe in MBTI is what would be Leading Fi with Ignoring Fe in socionics. Fi in MBTI is what would be Fe Leading with Fi Ignoring in socionics.


----------

