# MBTI vs. Socionics...of course



## ParetoCaretheStare (Jan 18, 2012)

PersonalityCafe concentrates on MBTI, which is clear and apparent based on the tests that they have.


Alright so now there's a small section with few readers, which I'm sure will grow in the near future; my question is, how am I a sensor in Socionics and an intuitive in MBTI? 

How is it that I'm an SEI in socionics (ISFp), although an INFP in MBTI?

How is it possible to be an "IDEALIST DREAMER" according to one theory, but the "MEDIATOR/PEACEMAKER" in another? 

It makes sense, solely because of the fact that two separate theories are allowed to have entirely different frameworks. But sensing/intuiting functions are adjectives, how can one theory reverse the already implied definition of a word that has already been claimed/created? Wouldn't that be like saying that my cup of green tea is now considered to be coffee because it's my cup of liquid and I can choose to call it coffee if I want to, and I'll tell the rest of the world that it's coffee because it's MY theory that I can interpret it to be something else?

So, what came first, socionics or MBTI? Why choose one over the other?

I know I'm asking a lot of questions, but I'm interested to hear what you guys think.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

I'm the same as you, INFP SEI. The sensing functions are very different in Socionics, you can be highly sensitive to your physical environment and how it affects you (Socionics Si) while still having the information intake of a Ne user in MBTI.

I wouldn't worry about trying to correlate them, that might lead to mistypes. @Rim is an INFP ESI (although I think he identifies as xNxP or something) so I think there's actually a fairly common divide.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Kito said:


> I'm the same as you, INFP SEI. The sensing functions are very different in Socionics, you can be highly sensitive to your physical environment and how it affects you (Socionics Si) while still having the information intake of a Ne user in MBTI.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about trying to correlate them, that might lead to mistypes. @Rim is an INFP ESI (although I think he identifies as xNxP or something) so I think there's actually a fairly common divide.


 I don't know my MBTI type....all I know is that I'm a strong P. I'm sure in my enneagram thou. Originally I typed INFP. I only very rarely scored sensor and am sure I don't prefer MBTI Se.

ESI 2 strongest functions are Fi and Se, thou neither really means the same thing in the MBTI.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

I think a more accurate analogy would be comparing green tea and black tea. Sure, they're both tea, but they don't taste the same. Or if you wanted to get a bit more irreverent, you could compare it to religion such as the vast number of Christian denominations and how no one can agree on which is correct, but people tend to get a bit fussy about that.

When you look at the two systems side-by-side, at first they look the same. But once you look a bit deeper, they're not. For example, the biggest difference I noticed was Se. In Socionics, Se is not purely physical enjoyment and the present moment, but it encompasses having a "presence" and knowing when to use one's "power" or "force." Those traits aren't part of typical MBTI theory, and if it is it's usually attributed to Te (or I thought so, anyway). 

Another thing is that Socionics seems to have more focus on the functions than MBTI does. (MBTI is dichotomy-based, but also based off Jung's cognitive functions, so that's not at all confusing.) And its Model A is much different than what JCF uses. Plus there's many more categories in Socionics.

I don't think one system is better than the other, really. Socionics gets props for doing the J/P thing right, but I think it has its flaws. For me, it's the vast amount of labels (such as Reinin) and a few concerns about Model A. But whatever works, eh?


----------



## NPPraxis (Oct 9, 2012)

Paradigm said:


> Another thing is that Socionics seems to have more focus on the functions than MBTI does. (MBTI is dichotomy-based, but also based off Jung's cognitive functions, so that's not at all confusing.)


Naw. MBTI's "dichotomy" was invented for the purpose of making the tests that could be sold, since the test tests against stereotypes for each of the four letters. MBTI is much more useful if you completely throw the dichotomy/test aspect out the window and go off of the original theory (based on cognitive functions).


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

NPPraxis said:


> Naw. MBTI's "dichotomy" was invented for the purpose of making the tests that could be sold, since the test tests against stereotypes for each of the four letters. MBTI is much more useful if you completely throw the dichotomy/test aspect out the window and go off of the original theory (based on cognitive functions).


Which I do, but many don't. There tends to be a separation between those who use only MBTI dichotomies and those who use MBTI-based JCF (to differentiate from Socionics' functions). I use the CFs almost exclusively, myself, and I despise the dichotomies.

The point I was trying to make is that MBTI tends to over-sell the dichotomy system and relatively few people look into the CFs, whereas in Socionics it _seems like_ the functions are introduced from the start.


----------



## NPPraxis (Oct 9, 2012)

Oh, I'll agree on that. MBTI as an organization is basically geared towards selling the test to companies. An HR director doesn't care to understand the function model, so they just present them the simplified dichotomy explanation because that's what the test results look like.

I like that Socionics touches functions from the start, but that's about all I like about Socionics; I find MBTI-based JCF otherwise entirely superior. Socionics tries to apply it to much, much more aspects of the human psyche and I don't think it fits. In my experience, it doesn't. I know I'm Ni-Te by MBTI, but I find myself frequently matching up with INTj and ENTj descriptions on Socionics as opposed to the INTp (Ni-Te) descriptions.

MBTI, meanwhile, applies itself *only* to cognition, and I find it to be very on-point in practical real-world application. I pair it with enneagram on occasion as enneagram doesn't apply to cognition at all, but enneagram also seems kind of hokey to me. Socionics kind of overlaps.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Wait.

All of this talk about "different" functions. I disagree _strongly_. 

Both sets of cognitive functions, both MBTI and socionics, are derived from the very same source - Carl Jung. Remember - any typological system prevalent in today's world is going to be based on language. There's no way around it because there is no way to communicate subtle differences between people except as mediated by words. Therefore, it is to be _expected_ that there are differences between the language of typological systems that were developed on separate continents. 

But the language is _*not *_the core of the system, is it? Is there not something to be perceived, or understood _behind _the language of the systems? If we aren't willing to see it, we're simply reading a bunch of stuff and determining whether it matches our own linguistic preferences. This is precisely what is going on on this thread now, and it's bound to create confusion and misuse of socionics. 

The systems are different, but not because the cognitive functions are different. *Reading function descriptions and comparing them across systems is useless, because the descriptions of both MBTI and socionics are describing the OUTPUT of the function, not the PROCESS ITSELF.* This is a huge flaw in the reading of the systems by 90% of people who try. It is only natural that the output is described differently by the system creators, Myers/Briggs and Augusta, because they themselves were different types from each other. 

Bottom line is that it IS possible to connect the functions if you can see the homologies between them cross-system. You have to look at the process, not the external description of the process or else you will overlook significant value of the theory, as is evident by several people here already.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

@_LXPilot_

I think you made your own point by saying that individual linguistic patterns create misunderstanding. I can't speak for anyone else, but I was using "different" to mean "interpreted differently." I'm not functioning at my prime today, so perhaps I should have stated that more clearly, but I'm pretty sure my analogy implied what I meant xD 
(Then again, I should learn by now that analogy and implication is not a language commonly spoken, so my mistake. I was never good at stating things in a way no one would misinterpret it.)

I do think that, ultimately, comparing the two systems is a bad way to go about things. They are similar enough to try to do so, but actually doing so will result in more misunderstandings than not. But it is somewhat natural to do it; a lot of people work off what they know. Problem is, few have the capability to separate one system from another.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Wait.
> 
> All of this talk about "different" functions. I disagree _strongly_.
> 
> ...


Beautiful.

The dynamism of man is exactly what makes difficult to rely on the subjective perceptions of the authors. It is easy to have 2 different descriptions of the same individual made by different people who know the same person.


----------



## ParetoCaretheStare (Jan 18, 2012)

I think Boolean came to the same conclusion as I; choose the leader which is a better reflection of yourself, qualities are associated with similarities which branch off into colonies.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

NPPraxis said:


> Naw. MBTI's "dichotomy" was invented for the purpose of making the tests that could be sold, since the test tests against stereotypes for each of the four letters. MBTI is much more useful if you completely throw the dichotomy/test aspect out the window and go off of the original theory (based on cognitive functions).


Wich is impossible. I love rock klimbing, art and going out into the forest on a moonlit winter night to watch the shadows dance, take in all the details, the crisp air, the smells, colors etc. Does this mean I prefer Se? Idk because I have very Ne-ish approach to everything else, love to speculate on possibilities, options, debate and brainstorm, need to talk things out, the back and forth between me and others is fun, throwing ideas around, contemplating death, existence etc.

I'm also highly empathic and have "thin skin", but I'm rather cold in appearence and love to take things apart to see what makes them work, do a ton of Ti related stuff and am rather impartial / logical...but also with many subjective values. Is it Ti or Fi then?

Imo we or at least I can not figure out function preference, its nothing more then wishful thinking without any certainty.

Compared to most Ns I'm more S, compared to most Ss, I'm more N, compared to Fs i'm rather T-ish, compared to Ts I'm an F. *shrug*

<.< also may people, myself included are internally BLIND. Hell I suffered a horrid crying episode at a funeral and I don't understand why or how that happened cus I wasn't aware of any feelings...just blindsided me out of nowhere....all of a sudden I just lost control of my body and mind.

@LXPilot

*Internally I percieve EVRYTHING as pure chaos from which random insights bubble up, I just "know" things and I have to draw it out, write it down or talk it out in order to make sense and understand what I'm actually thinking, its feeling tones, maps in my head, pictures, fluid events and visualizations, sounds. Chaos is the mother of all creation for me and I can only understand myself from the outside in, through what I do. How does one keep track of and understand sudden insights into things or just "understanding" the pattern without being able to say why or how? 

" - I fixed it!
- How did you know how to!?
- I don't know how to explain, I just did..."*

There is no order, nothing is preset, everything evolves and adapts to what is needed. Needless to say I have HORRID memory, esecially for abstractions: words, dates, representations, names. The past is fuzzy imo, I just move forward by adapting evolving, changing to meet challanges and imposing the internal on the outside, thus molding my surroundings to myself.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

I don't see why one needs to be chosen over the other. For me they describe different parts of a person's personality.

Words such as 'sensing' 'intuition' only have the meaning that we give to them. As far as I can see there is Socionics Si and MBTI Si and they are different things.

This is sort of in the realm of MBTI Ti where one personally defines things themselves, after all, (rhetorical question) what does it really mean to be an 'idealist dreamer'? For the Ti person, the meaning of that phrase is determined by their perception (objective or subjective). It is acceptable to call a cup of green tea coffee as long as everything perceived fits that idea. A real cup of coffee (if perceived with Se) must be called something else since it is perceived as different. Of course it's easier to communicate with people if you use the labels they use.

I observe one of my relatives - in MBTI he is an ISTJ, in Socionics LSI. Using both systems, can describe various aspects of him to give a bigger picture of his personality.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ParetoCaretheStare said:


> my question is, how am I a sensor in Socionics and an intuitive in MBTI?
> How is it that I'm an SEI in socionics (ISFp), although an INFP in MBTI?
> How is it possible to be an "IDEALIST DREAMER" according to one theory, but the "MEDIATOR/PEACEMAKER" in another?


My response to people who pick such different types in Socionics and MBTI is that you have typed yourself incorrectly either in MBTI or in Socionics, or possibly in both. I say this as someone who has spent a good year studying the theoretical underpinnings of both typologies, in addition to carefully reviewing C. Jung's work on psychological type, and I have firmly established that my type has the same cognitive functions across all three - Jung, MBTI, and Socionics. When people come to me and say that they have such different types, I think they either haven't put in enough time and effort into studying the theory and surveying real life examples of types, or have misunderstood something along the way. 

Many type themselves simply going by profiles, then they wonder how they can be "The Mechanic" under one theory and "The Teacher" under another. Instead of looking at what the profiles are called, they should instead study the information elements and the functions in greater depth.



> It makes sense, solely because of the fact that two separate theories are allowed to have entirely different frameworks.


Not in my experience.



> But sensing/intuiting functions are adjectives, how can one theory reverse the already implied definition of a word that has already been claimed/created? Wouldn't that be like saying that my cup of green tea is now considered to be coffee because it's my cup of liquid and I can choose to call it coffee if I want to, and I'll tell the rest of the world that it's coffee because it's MY theory that I can interpret it to be something else?


I ended up having the same intuition/sensing layout, so as far as I am concerned they haven't reversed it.



> So, what came first, socionics or MBTI? Why choose one over the other?


MBTI and Socionics were incepted at about the same time, around 1960s-70s.

I didn't need to choose Jung over Socionics over MBTI, because after carefully studying them for a good year, I ended up having the same cognitive functions across all three. And I think that most other people will discover the same thing if only they stop focusing on the profiles and look more into the theory of IEs and functions.

Something tells me that you simply haven't done enough research into both typologies. The fact that you don't know which one came first, for example. You know this kind of information is given in the introductory articles to these theories, right? By the sounds of it you haven't even read the introductory material. So then of course you'll be very confused by it all.



> I know I'm asking a lot of questions, but I'm interested to hear what you guys think.


I think you need to give it more thought and spend more time looking into the theory. It's not as simple and easy as picking up a profile and associating with it.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Rim said:


> Wich is impossible. I love rock klimbing, art and going out into the forest on a moonlit winter night to watch the shadows dance, *take in all the details*, the crisp air, the smells, colors etc. Does this mean *I prefer Se?* Idk because I have very Ne-ish approach to everything else, love to speculate on possibilities, options, debate and brainstorm, need to talk things out, the back and forth between me and others is fun, throwing ideas around, contemplating death, existence etc.


Seems like it because a Ne-dom wouldn´t describe it this way.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> Seems like it because a Ne-dom wouldn´t describe it this way.


How then?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@_Rim_

More wishy-washy and not so concrete, Ne searches for possibilites inside objects and goes not for their direct experience. Ne does not appreciate objective details because it comes in combination with Si. 

btw. your description reminds me of many similar others in the ISFP subforum.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> @_Rim_
> 
> More wishy-washy and not so concrete, Ne searches for possibilites inside objects and goes not for their direct experience. Ne does not appreciate objective details because it comes in combination with Si.
> 
> btw. your description reminds me of many similar others in the ISFP subforum.


Hmm...yeah I wrote a piece of fiction somewhere in the ISFP forum and someone commented it was loaded with Se. As usual the ISFP description is very far from me thou. I need to check this out.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Paradigm said:


> Which I do, but many don't. There tends to be a separation between those who use only MBTI dichotomies and those who use MBTI-based JCF (to differentiate from Socionics' functions). I use the CFs almost exclusively, myself, and I despise the dichotomies.
> 
> The point I was trying to make is that MBTI tends to over-sell the dichotomy system and relatively few people look into the CFs, whereas in Socionics it _seems like_ the functions are introduced from the start.


Why do you "despise" the dichotomies? Do they just seem too simple or what?




Zero11 said:


> More wishy-washy and not so concrete, Ne searches for possibilites inside objects and goes not for their direct experience. Ne does not appreciate objective details because it comes in combination with Si.
> 
> btw. your description reminds me of many similar others in the ISFP subforum.


Ahah and how about someone who doesn't take in all the details consciously because their (sensory) perception is so holistic?... Give me an example of such wishy-washy Ne description of an object?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Wait.
> 
> All of this talk about "different" functions. I disagree _strongly_.
> 
> ...


I agree with your bolded part but yet I disagree with the rest - the systems are built in such a way that they are fundamentally different to each other. Socionics focuses a lot on intertype. To remove this aspect of socionics, to only focus on function preferences will lead to bias. I do not see processing as being truly reflected in socionics' intertype system. If you want the intertype system to make sense, then you have to forget about functions themselves and look more at the external behavior we exhibit. That's how intertype ultimately seems to work as far as I understand it. This is because intertype how intertype is interpreted in both systems. According to the MBTI, intertype works better with people sharing the top three functions. Especially dominant-tertiary is strongly suggested if you look at the Beebe model, although others suggest that sharing dominant/auxiliary perceiving functions matter more than the judging functions you share. Now look at socionics that actually puts it quite differently in this regard. There's also a clear difference between the function stacks between say, socionics and Beebe. I also think there's a fundamental difference between how the F functions are understood in particular.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rim said:


> How then?


As an auxiliary Ne user, taking in concrete details requires a lot of focus from me and is very draining. I can't sustain this for very long as it requires such a sudden shift in my thinking that is not natural for me. Even when I write my detail is Si, it's focused on building mood, not the details themselves. 

If you want to compare to your writing (this is the most recent story I've been writing one) you can read it here: 


* *




_Counting down to the minute._ I wake up a Saturday morning as the industrious noise of the blue collar workers shrieks through my head. _Couldn’t have a better alarm clock than this._ Neverending rain outside, monochrome light strikes my face. Yet another bleak Autumn day. _What have I done and where am I going?_ I dress up in a wrinkled t-shirt smelling of yesterday and put on some coffee in the kitchen. As the machine is working in its typical frantic manner I watch the steam slowly soar towards the ceiling. I can hear some rats being skittish outside my apartment and I pour the dark liquid into a coffee cup. Hot as hell, dark as my soul. I sip on the coffee while watching the rain pouring down outside. 

Headache strikes me and I walk towards the bathroom, zombified. I look at my mirror reflection and frown. Dark eye-rings, brown hair in a dire need of a shower and tired grey eyes look back at me. I grimace and put some tooth paste on a brush that would be better off in the waste bin and begin to brush my teeth. The continuous movement calms me down and I think of so many things left unsaid and undone. _Why am I here and why? _I spit out the remaining tooth paste into the sink and watch it whirl down into the darkness. It took some time for me to turn on the tap because of all the rust. After some unsuccessful struggles brown water starts flowing down the drain and I put my mouth underneath and let the metallic taste fill me up. _Time to freshen up! _The sound of running liquid resonates throughout the entire plumbing system. It seeps and weeps and whizzes. I turn the tap left and the water stops flowing. _The shirt smells really bad. _I remove it in disdain, tossing it away on the floor and step into the shower. Drizzles of lukewarm water hit my face and I am in no hurry and I think of the end of days. _What about tomorrow? Sorrow cannot stop the pain. _

I dry myself with a towel and rummage my wardrobe for something clean and not as wrinkly as the rest of my clothing. I eventually settle with a pair of blue jeans and a regular shirt. Eyeing myself in the mirror I realize that I’m also in the need of a haircut. I usually keep my hair rather short but it has started to fall all the way down my nose. People have sometimes given me awkward comments in the past about its chestnut color but I never understood what made it stand out among other hair types. It was just hair. The sound of my doorbell startled me as I rarely if ever have any visitors and I wondered who it could be. Another case of the local Jehovah’s Witnesses trying to recruit me in vain? _No, sorry sir, I am not really interested in your religion. Yes sir, I assure you I will seek you out the day I change my mind. Thank you for informing me about _The Watchtower_. I will definitely read it through. Please have a good day (and now leave me alone!). _I look through the peep hole and I see a delivery man on the other side. I open the door, perplexed. The delivery man was dressed in a green outfit with a green cap to go with it, holding a brown package in his arms. 
“Hello!” The delivery man delivers an equally big smile and looks down at a note in one of his hands. “Is this Mr. David Connor?” I nod towards the man and give him a faint smile. 
“Yes, I’m David.”
“Great!” the man said with the same burst of energy as before. “Could you please sign this package?” I wrinkled my eyebrows. 
“All right?” The delivery man gave me a pen and I signed my name with crooked letters. Beautiful hand-writing had never been one of my strengths. 
“I gotta go. Take care!” the delivery man told me and rushed away before I even got time to get back into my apartment. 

The package was heavy and I wondered what was inside of it. To my knowledge I had not ordered anything. I put the package on the living room table and went into the kitchen to get a knife. From what I could tell there was no sender which was strange because how could I send it back? I cut through the brown tape holding the sides together and opened it. All I could see at first was white synthetic protection paper with something inside. When I brought it outside I realize that I’m holding an old type machine, one of those that were used in the 60s. It was black and there seemed to be a note attached on the front. I remove the synthetic protection paper and read it:




You can see how the details are meant to create a certain mood or impression which makes it Si.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Paradigm said:


> Which I do, but many don't. There tends to be a separation between those who use only MBTI dichotomies and those who use MBTI-based JCF (to differentiate from Socionics' functions). I use the CFs almost exclusively, myself, and I despise the dichotomies.


That's weird of you to say that because cognitive functions don't exist outside of dichotomies. N only exists wrt to S, T only exists wrt to F, E only exists wrt to I. Cognitive functions are forever and for all time linked to each other through these three dichotomous constructs. Or did you mean something else?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@LeaT

I don't deal well with details either. It bores me and I get sleepy ...monotone office work is my bane...I hate dealing with numbers or having to sit down and draw or do anything detailed for hours would drive me insane. I really love troubleshooting thou.

I use it to paint the atmosphere as well, mostly because I can see the scene in my head as it unfolds.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rim said:


> @_LeaT_
> 
> I don't deal well with details either. It bores me and I get sleepy ...monotone office work is my bane...I hate dealing with numbers or having to sit down and draw or do anything detailed for hours would drive me insane.
> 
> I use it to paint the atmosphere as well, mostly because I can see the scene in my head as it unfolds.


Monotony is not the same as the details I am talking about here though. What I am talking about here for example is if I am told to say, describe the detail of a flower. I find that very hard to do, to meticulously study the details and mention all of them as they are because to me a flower is so much more than just a flower.

Eh, I didn't intend to make this into Rim's what's my type thread but... here go you, describe this flower. Write what comes to your mind when you watch it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lower,_Boutonniere_flower,_Cornflower_-_3.jpg

As for myself, aside the obvious fact that it's blue, I find it incredibly hard to even know where to begin. My mind is just so not wired to look for and focus on sensory details.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Monotony is not the same as the details I am talking about here though. What I am talking about here for example is if I am told to say, describe the detail of a flower. I find that very hard to do, to meticulously study the details and mention all of them as they are because to me a flower is so much more than just a flower.
> 
> Eh, I didn't intend to make this into Rim's what's my type thread but... here go you, describe this flower. Write what comes to your mind when you watch it:
> 
> ...


Its blue and immediately I get this sense of dread, as if it would swallow and mutilate me if I get close. Wonder if flies would think that if they had more then a few neurons. The background is blurry and annoys my eyes. The rest is...eh, lets just leave it at that. ( I have no clue how to start describing that mess and the more I look at it the more I get the sense that the petrels are moving around in this creepy way)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rim said:


> Its blue and immediately I get this sense of dread, as if it would swallow and mutilate me if I get close. Wonder if flies would think that if they had more then a few neurons. The background is blurry and annoys my eyes. The rest is...eh, lets just leave it at that.


Seems more Ni-Se derived than Ne-Si to me. The first think I thought of when I forced myself to describe it was that it's blue and the sky is blue, but the sky is blue because of the way we perceive the photon wave lengths, so blue is just an illusion, it does not actually exist, which has philosphical implications and so on  As you can see, I don't even talk about the image itself which you actually do. You focus no the image still even when you mention flies because it ties back to whether they would experience the same way you would.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

> As for myself, aside the obvious fact that it's blue, I find it incredibly hard to even know where to begin. My mind is just so not wired to look for and focus on sensory details.


The same issue for me but for a different reason than for you. It's not because the flower would be "more" to me than just a flower. It is just a flower and I do see a lot more all at once than it being blue but it's hard to verbalize these details into words. If I'm to talk about the picture without delay, I can just say I see a cool blue flower in a blurry green background with another blue flower in it, ok, can I now move on and focus on something else lol. If needed I can describe a lot more details, sure, but it takes time to put them into words. I just have a hard time naming certain objects or traits with words. I'm pretty sure this about me is outside the coverage of MBTI or socionics functions... Also I find it pretty draining to waste so much time and conscious focus on the little details of one little object one by one, my perception is holistic, I recall that one is covered by MBTI Se, perhaps. But the verbalizing issue I am sure is not covered by it, right?


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Why do you "despise" the dichotomies? Do they just seem too simple or what?


Too simple, too stereotyped, etc.. Maybe a more accurate way of saying it is that I "despise" (I agree it's a strong word ) the way people use them. 



cyamitide said:


> That's weird of you to say that because cognitive functions don't exist outside of dichotomies. N only exists wrt to S, T only exists wrt to F, E only exists wrt to I. Cognitive functions are forever and for all time linked to each other through these three dichotomous constructs. Or did you mean something else?


No, I meant rather than use (for example) S/N, I prefer to use Se/Ni and Ne/Si. Of course there's cases when a person can't be that specific, and that's fine, but there is difference between SP/NJ and SJ/NP and dichotomies themselves don't reflect that in the same way CFs do.

EDIT: I mean, in the dichotomy system I may as well type as an INFP due to behavior even when my brain works in a more similar manner to an INTJ.

I may as well just put out there I'm a bit "high" on painkillers so I apologize for not making sense (more than usual) or not elaborating well enough in the past couple days. And I think it affected my impulse control in regards to posting a bit


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> *Ahah and how about someone who doesn't take in all the details consciously because their (sensory) perception is so holistic?*... Give me an example of such wishy-washy Ne description of an object?


*WTF are you talking about?*
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...tive-function-picture-game-3.html#post2476161


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Paradigm said:


> No, I meant rather than use (for example) S/N, I prefer to use Se/Ni and Ne/Si. Of course there's cases when a person can't be that specific, and that's fine, but there is difference between SP/NJ and SJ/NP and dichotomies themselves don't reflect that in the same way CFs do.
> 
> EDIT: I mean, in the dichotomy system I may as well type as an INFP due to behavior even when my brain works in a more similar manner to an INTJ.


ah you mean using letters without E/I orientation marker, sorry I misunderstood with dichotomies you were referring to


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> *WTF are you talking about?*
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...tive-function-picture-game-3.html#post2476161


Now how about you explain why you went "WTF"? Is what I said so hard to believe?

Thanks for the link btw.




Paradigm said:


> EDIT: I mean, in the dichotomy system I may as well type as an INFP due to behavior even when my brain works in a more similar manner to an INTJ.


But what prevents you from using the 4 simple letters as referring to cognitive workings? I never understood this one, why must it be associated with behaviour?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Now how about you explain why you went "WTF"? Is what I said so hard to believe?


Hard to believe? I don´t even know what you mean with "too holistic to see the details" :frustrating: it makes no fucking sense.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> *WTF are you talking about?*
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...tive-function-picture-game-3.html#post2476161


Once you know how that game works, can you trust your mind in not deceiving you?

Do you wish to see the picture like that because it leads to a certain type you want to be or like? I don't see how describing pictures is of any use to anyone who knows how and what to say to get specific results.

...furthermore, the evaluation of the results by other members who believe they know what they are talking about is dubious at best. I can describe it any way I want or feel like.

Just stating objective reality here. If I can poke holes into the MBTI and socionics as if they were wet toilet paper, the biggest one being that there is absolutely no reliable objective way to measure function preference....then why should I even consider anyone's even my own opinion on the matter?

=_=...frustrating...imo nobody knows and anyone who shows no doubts or at least some skepticism is deluding themselves.

*...btw this very post is testament and solid evidence of me being type 6. I haven't found anything similar in the MBTI or socionics so far.*


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

LeaT said:


> the systems are built in such a way that they are fundamentally different to each other.


Not really. They both do the same overall thing - placing a selection of Jung's 8 functions into "slots," or roles, which then determine the structure of a basic "type" based on the arrangement. Then, they make generalized statements about each of the types, based on how the functions are arranged. It's just that MBTI is a literal hierarchy from top to bottom, and Model A is a hierarchy based on energy metabolism, not raw preference. 



> Socionics focuses a lot on intertype. To remove this aspect of socionics, to only focus on function preferences will lead to bias.


The ITR's are derived _from _the functions, not the other way around. You can't separate the ITR's from Model A, because each relationship is just a collection of predicted responses to each of the information elements - Fe to one's PoLR, for example + shared leading and creative = supervisory. As far as biases go, socionics isn't really best studied for frivolous, mere enjoyment/academic intrigue anyway. It is of very little value being structurally scrutinized more than used in the real world, even if it is not 100% accurate or precise.



> If you want the intertype system to make sense, then you have to forget about functions themselves and look more at the external behavior we exhibit.


Uhh no, not universally. Maybe to you. All you're doing here is pressing your preference for judging over perceiving, as I would be doing, perceiving over judging if I was to contest. As an Ni lead, I see the inherent process behind each function, watch continuously for signals that imply certain functions being used, then make conclusions on how to act, based on where the relationship fits into the system. Obviously I miss the mark sometimes, but why must it be perfect the first time, every time? The answer - it doesn't. As one gains more information about the person, adaptation or reaction becomes a continuous, revised process. 



> Especially dominant-tertiary is strongly suggested if you look at the Beebe model, although others suggest that sharing dominant/auxiliary perceiving functions matter more than the judging functions you share.


According to this article, and my own understanding, Beebe proposed an "inverse" relationship, or essentially duality relationship as the optimal. As, originally, did Keirsey. So, if you take this to be true, then



> Now look at socionics that actually puts it quite differently in this regard.


No, not really.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> Not really. They both do the same overall thing - placing a selection of Jung's 8 functions into "slots," or roles, which then determine the structure of a basic "type" based on the arrangement. Then, they make generalized statements about each of the types, based on how the functions are arranged. It's just that MBTI is a literal hierarchy from top to bottom, and Model A is a hierarchy based on energy metabolism, not raw preference. .


But then we're back to the green tea and black tea thing, no?


> The ITR's are derived _from _the functions, not the other way around. You can't separate the ITR's from Model A, because each relationship is just a collection of predicted responses to each of the information elements - Fe to one's PoLR, for example + shared leading and creative = supervisory. I don't understand why one couldn't use Model A on its own. Why not? It does the same thing as Beebe, just with more detail to each function. As far as biases go, socionics isn't really best studied for frivolous, mere enjoyment/academic intrigue anyway. It is of very little value being structurally scrutinized more than used in the real world, even if it is not 100% accurate or precise.


That's how I feel it works at face value but not in actual practice. Then why do I seem to score LII if you just look at my functions (or what functions I appear to be using) but when you look at quadra values, how I actually act, think and behave beyond that, it's much closer to EII? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Then it suggests some kind of inherent flaw.


> Uhh no, not universally. Maybe to you. All you're doing here is pressing your preference for judging over perceiving, as I would be doing, perceiving over judging if I was to contest. As an Ni lead, I see the inherent process behind each function, watch continuously for signals that imply certain functions being used, then make conclusions on how to act, based on where the relationship fits into the system. Obviously I miss the mark sometimes, but why must it be perfect the first time, every time? The answer - it doesn't. As one gains more information about the person, adaptation or reaction becomes a continuous, revised process.


I have been thinking a lot regarding this and I just can't agree based on my personal experience into trying to fit myself into the model. It just seems very contradictory.


> According to this article, and my own understanding, Beebe proposed an "inverse" relationship, or essentially duality relationship as the optimal. As, originally, did Keirsey. So, if you take this to be true, then


Yes, they do, but they also suggest other relationships to be positive that socionics at least to my knowledge doesn't.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

> Then why do I seem to score LII if you just look at my functions (or what functions I appear to be using) but when you look at quadra values, how I actually act, think and behave beyond that, it's much closer to EII? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Then it suggests some kind of inherent flaw.


The quadra can be separated from Model A. They are merely extensions (quite flawed ones, I might add) from the function matrix. Same idea as the facial recognition thing - not really necessary to the theory, you could chop it out and you'd still have function within the theory. The quadra, to my knowledge, are about group relations more than individual anyway, which is significant when you consider that any relationship will always be between two people. Therefore, they aren't really the best tool to type oneself. 

I think it's quite apparent that you are a Ti lead, as our primary motivation in these discussions has been to audit, or correct the other - a hallmark of the quasi-id. I will say that the verbage of wikisocion et al descriptions of socionics IE to IE as they "sum" to a whole type is quite rough, and not always applicable - hence, one needs an inherent understanding of the functions and IE's to use the ITR's. 



> I have been thinking a lot regarding this and I just can't agree based on my personal experience into trying to fit myself into the model. It just seems very contradictory.


That's because it's my way of using the theory, and we prefer opposing IE's function to function. 



> Yes, they do, but they also suggest other relationships to be positive that socionics at least to my knowledge doesn't.


Mirage is said to be the second best type for a relationship for perceivers, and semidual second best for judgers - Filatova recommends them. This would, under translation, mean ENFP and INTJ, or ENFJ and INTP, which are commonly esteemed relations in MBTI. "Benefit," as recommended by Keirsey on his (pffh) third try, I don't know, but Keirsey is Keirsey so who cares.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

LeaT said:


> That's how I feel it works at face value but not in actual practice. Then why do I seem to score LII if you just look at my functions (or what functions I appear to be using) but when you look at quadra values, how I actually act, think and behave beyond that, it's much closer to EII? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Then it suggests some kind of inherent flaw.


Describing 16 types is a very challenging task. Assuming equal type distribution you'll have to draft a profile which describes 400+ million individuals. Then imagine going even further and trying to write descriptions which would encompass the values of 1.5 billion individuals (this is how large a quadra is). I think you would agree that this is virtually impossible. Thus not everyone is going to associate with quadra profiles and values of course as they have been drafted. This is the flaw.

I would say focus on the fundamentals like the information elements, the functions, and the dichotomies, and view everything else like quadra progression and any of the higher level socionical stuff with a skeptical eye until you have enough evidence/experience to verify whether any of it is true.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Rim said:


> Once you know how that game works, can you trust your mind in not deceiving you?
> 
> Do you wish to see the picture like that because it leads to a certain type you want to be or like? I don't see how describing pictures is of any use to anyone who knows how and what to say to get specific results.
> 
> ...furthermore, the evaluation of the results by other members who believe they know what they are talking about is dubious at best. I can describe it any way I want or feel like.


Using this argument, one could question everything. :laughing:
N-doms mostly don´t describe things in full detail. So to say we are not able to grasp all details to do so. Our preference lies more in abstractions or better associations (Ti picks the whole into "abstracted" pieces) of reality. We are using metaphors to compensate for this lack of sensory incoming.

Ni/Se has another view on beauty as Ne/Si has, even in food taste.

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/110983-ni-se-vs-si-ne-map-analogy.html

Se/Ni
http://personalitycafe.com/isfp-forum-artists/52540-isfp-porn.html

Si/Ne
http://personalitycafe.com/infp-forum-idealists/38537-artists-you-love-2.html
http://personalitycafe.com/istj-forum-duty-fulfillers/52389-istj-porn.html

As you can see Si is more bound to more specific memory savings. But who cares there is no evidence so everything is possible and nothing really true.  Ni doesn´t works this way  Ni is constant guessing what might come closest to the final result. Ni isn´t determined because it´s a perceiving function.



> *Just stating objective reality here.* If I can poke holes into the MBTI and socionics as if they were wet toilet paper, *the biggest one being that there is absolutely no reliable objective way to measure function preference....then why should I even consider anyone's even my own opinion on the matter?*


http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...pe-Reservation?p=888262&viewfull=1#post888262

and

http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...pe-Reservation?p=888269&viewfull=1#post888269

This reminds me also of your writings. With less intensity but the essence is still the same. (Se)

*Se* - *Te *
Don´t let your doubts clouding your judgment you need to accept without further evaluation. The complete process of recognition needs time. (Haha I feel it :laughing: I hope my thats not to only Ni biased view) Time intuition is not everyones cup of tea.
I realize just how useful Ni is in understanding such a system with various subjective perspectives. A rather unfair advantage throughout the JCF and 16 types thing. However, it is introverted and therefore of limited use to explain things.



> *...btw this very post is testament and solid evidence of me being type 6. I haven't found anything similar in the MBTI or socionics so far.*


Yeah I found the Enneagram also far more easier to determine. :laughing:


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> Hard to believe? I don´t even know what you mean with "too holistic to see the details" :frustrating: it makes no fucking sense.


Well, you didn't read very carefully. I said: _"someone who doesn't take in all the details consciously because their (sensory) perception is so holistic"_. That is, conscious focus is key word here. Details are seen but not consciously focused on. Still "WTF"?




Rim said:


> Just stating objective reality here. If I can poke holes into the MBTI and socionics as if they were wet toilet paper, the biggest one being that there is absolutely no reliable objective way to measure function preference....then why should I even consider anyone's even my own opinion on the matter?
> 
> =_=...frustrating...imo nobody knows and anyone who shows no doubts or at least some skepticism is deluding themselves.
> 
> ...btw this very post is testament and solid evidence of me being type 6.


That's not really enneagram 6, just scientific way of thinking  And I agree a lot with this.




LXPilot said:


> Uhh no, not universally. Maybe to you. All you're doing here is pressing your preference for judging over perceiving, as I would be doing, perceiving over judging if I was to contest. As an Ni lead, I see the inherent process behind each function, watch continuously for signals that imply certain functions being used, then make conclusions on how to act, based on where the relationship fits into the system. Obviously I miss the mark sometimes, but why must it be perfect the first time, every time? The answer - it doesn't. As one gains more information about the person, adaptation or reaction becomes a continuous, revised process.


As for missing the mark at times - A question here would be, do you make fewer or more mistakes trying to utilize socionics than if you didn't use it?




> According to this article, and my own understanding, Beebe proposed an "inverse" relationship, or essentially duality relationship as the optimal.


The article lists a few theories on relationship pairings and then ends by concluding: _""So, "What type is best for me?" The culmination of my research indicates that type is not a divining rod. There is little knowing whether any person will hook up with another, and it is foolish to predict or try to control attraction. Type cannot help anyone accurately identify an ideal friend or romantic partner. After all, you do not have a relationship with a type, but with a person."_




LeaT said:


> But then we're back to the green tea and black tea thing, no?
> 
> That's how I feel it works at face value but not in actual practice. Then why do I seem to score LII if you just look at my functions (or what functions I appear to be using) but when you look at quadra values, how I actually act, think and behave beyond that, it's much closer to EII? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Then it suggests some kind of inherent flaw.


IMO, a flaw is trying to derive concrete quadra values from abstract IE's.




cyamitide said:


> Describing 16 types is a very challenging task. Assuming equal type distribution you'll have to draft a profile which describes 400+ million individuals. Then imagine going even further and trying to write descriptions which would encompass the values of 1.5 billion individuals (this is how large a quadra is). I think you would agree that this is virtually impossible. Thus not everyone is going to associate with quadra profiles and values of course as they have been drafted. This is the flaw.


Interestingly enough, some devoted socionists forget about this and outright claim that it is impossible for someone to have values from more than one quadra, provided that they know themselves "properly". Fun Stuff.



Zero11 said:


> Using this argument, one could question everything. :laughing:


Nope, if objectivity is a requirement, then one can't question everything using this argument.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Well, you didn't read very carefully. I said: _"someone who doesn't take in all the details consciously because their (sensory) perception is so holistic"_. That is, conscious focus is key word here. Details are seen but not consciously focused on. Still "WTF"?


Thanks for clarification but this description is either far from Se or outside of Typology.



> Nope, if objectivity is a requirement, then one can't question everything using this argument.


So what is Objective? Who can determine this?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> Thanks for clarification but this description is either far from Se or outside of Typology.


See, that was what I was asking about. 




> So what is Objective? Who can determine this?


I am sure you know the common definition of "objective"... if not, google it, I am not going to quote it to you.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> See, that was what I was asking about.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> As for missing the mark at times - A question here would be, do you make fewer or more mistakes trying to utilize socionics than if you didn't use it?


Yes, significantly. The reason being, that it makes it much easier to be aware of what other people around you are expecting, and whether or not there is a reasonable chance of finding common ground or not - and if so, how. I don't actively "use" socionics in the sense of accepting or rejecting people on the basis of it. 

But if I'm starting to get into a rut and don't know why, or getting stuck at work with something, I'll get in touch with a dual or semidual friend. Skeptics could say it's placebo (maybe it is, but if so, then that alone has value), but I level out quite a bit with them more than I do with, say, my mom, who is my superego (SEI). She's another success scenario entirely - we got along much better once I started "using" socionics because I stopped trying to assert NiTe onto her. Our relationship is a tad superficial, but I've noticed we don't get into nearly as many heated arguments now since I tend to keep a greater psychological distance - less intense philosophy, more mutual activities. I now know what the effects of my sometimes harsh criticism are, given her PoLR to my ego block. We're both a lot happier, and I wouldn't have been able to pinpoint what my ego block was doing had I not known what it was to begin with. 

The key to using it successfully is being observant, and noticing patterns of repeated behavior, _then _utilizing the theory. I sometimes make the mistake of jumping right into it, and mistype people at first. But because I'm not really using it to do anything but predict how to prepare myself mentally for coming relational dynamics, it hardly makes an impact on the situation most times. 



> The article lists a few theories on relationship pairings and then ends by concluding: _""So, "What type is best for me?" The culmination of my research indicates that type is not a divining rod. There is little knowing whether any person will hook up with another, and it is foolish to predict or try to control attraction. Type cannot help anyone accurately identify an ideal friend or romantic partner. After all, you do not have a relationship with a type, but with a person."_


I don't necessarily disagree. I wasn't arguing that duality is a cure-all, you should know that because you've read my thread on why it doesn't work. This citation was to prove that there is material out there other than socionics that says your functional inverse is your optimal relationship - it isn't just socionics that says so.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i just got through reading one of the sticky threads that talks about how mbti and socionics are alike/different. they... seem like the same story told by two different people. i really don't see a difference--not a fundamental one at least. and some of the differences that i do see wouldn't necessarily break it's counterpart, but give a fuller, more rounded edge to the other. 

(disclaimer of ignorance)

to me, the only differences seem to come from where the theories are beginning. jungian psychology starts with the motivation while socionics chooses to start with what's apparent from an observers perspective. each side will only go so far in explaining human behavior, or in giving one the tools to examine life/people. 

really, if you try to let your mind rest between the two points--jungian&socionics/inner&outer--you may be able to draw from both and again, make a rounder, more fully fleshed-out model of what your approaching. or better yet, finding out how they do connect can possibly shed more light on both sides than a person could get from looking at only one or the other.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Describing 16 types is a very challenging task. Assuming equal type distribution you'll have to draft a profile which describes 400+ million individuals. Then imagine going even further and trying to write descriptions which would encompass the values of 1.5 billion individuals (this is how large a quadra is). I think you would agree that this is virtually impossible. Thus not everyone is going to associate with quadra profiles and values of course as they have been drafted. This is the flaw.
> 
> I would say focus on the fundamentals like the information elements, the functions, and the dichotomies, and view everything else like quadra progression and any of the higher level socionical stuff with a skeptical eye until you have enough evidence/experience to verify whether any of it is true.


I don't know, I feel the very opposite and ONLY when it comes to socionics because I feel intertype has such a large role that just trying to see what functions fit you, you're going to miss out.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Interestingly enough, some devoted socionists forget about this and outright claim that it is impossible for someone to have values from more than one quadra, provided that they know themselves "properly". Fun Stuff.


I was never big on the idea of quadra values for that reason. Person's values can change throughout the course of their life time being influenced by other sources, such as their family, friends, movies that they watch, literature that they read, etc.

Regarding Socionics, I've seen people adopting values that stereotypically belong to other quadra after they came into close contact with their Supervisors and Beneficiaries. Transmission of information between quadra runs along supervision and benefit rings, where Supervisor type passes information to Supervisee type, and Beneficiary type passes information to Benefactor type, so after prolonged interaction it's not uncommon for people to pick up ideas and notions from others who are part of the same rings of benefit and supervision with them.



LeaT said:


> I don't know, I feel the very opposite and ONLY when it comes to socionics because I feel intertype has such a large role that just trying to see what functions fit you, you're going to miss out.


When I started learning Socionics I used to think the same, that intertype relationships play a significant role. But in practice it turned out that no, these patterns of relating are rather vague and can be distorted by other personality aspects, like people's enneagram types.

I know Socionics places a lot of emphasis on them, but you have to remember that it's only when they are being discussed within the context of the theory. Stepping out of the box of the theory, and into real life, you begin to see that compatibility or incompatibility of IMs is only one small component of relating to others. Therefore I acknowledge that something like it exists but I don't place a lot of importance on them.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

celticstained said:


> i just got through reading one of the sticky threads that talks about how mbti and socionics are alike/different. they... seem like the same story told by two different people. i really don't see a difference--not a fundamental one at least. and some of the differences that i do see wouldn't necessarily break it's counterpart, but give a fuller, more rounded edge to the other.
> 
> (disclaimer of ignorance)
> 
> ...


Those who perceive them to be incompatible focus the subjective descriptions that actually seem flawed on analysis as well as the minute differences that are present in the generalizations, the out put; ie how socionics and MBTI assign MBTI:ISTJ and Socionics:ISTj similar personas despite different functions. Equivalently that is like typing your MBTI based on the persona descriptions on personalitypage.com, most people realize that they are a little bit of every type since the generalizations are off.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> Using this argument, one could question everything. :laughing:
> N-doms mostly don´t describe things in full detail. So to say we are not able to grasp all details to do so. Our preference lies more in abstractions or better associations (Ti picks the whole into "abstracted" pieces) of reality. We are using metaphors to compensate for this lack of sensory incoming.
> 
> Ni/Se has another view on beauty as Ne/Si has, even in food taste.
> ...


How I understood from Lenore Thompson the abstract logic function is Te and ONLY Te. Ni-Te users should theoretically understand abstract logic with ease. Ti relies on direct experience and is concrete as it recieves information through Ne-Se mainly. Thus Ti users should theoretically find it easy to work with concrete things or interconnections of these and NOT with abstract logic. Ti-Se users are supposed to be masters of this. Ti-Ne while being abstract is still connected to the real world, real connections, real possibilities.

As an example I have a friend from back in highschool who says he is INTJ, he is an anlgebra genius and abstract logic is in his very nature, while my brother the ENTP hates algebra and prefers busynesss logic, capitalizing on practical opportunities "Entrepreneur" stuff, coming up with creative ideas.

From what I gathered Jung mainly associated intuition with hallucination, schizophrenia, 6-th sense and abstract internal worlds associated with mental illness (in the case of Ni-users). He himself being logical sensory introvert aka ISTP or LSE.

I found it especially interesting that introverted feelers (Fi users) and all T's are said to be cold (subdued emotional expression) and distant. Fi users, because they find it difficult to express feelings.

Si and Fi users are mentioned as the artists and not Se users as Se is considered materialistic practical and hedonistic with impulsive behaviour (more the driver, the dancer, the daredevil, sports).

....INFPs seem to have a bad taste in art. Its so boring.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> (...)


Haha. 




LXPilot said:


> Yes, significantly. The reason being, that it makes it much easier to be aware of what other people around you are expecting, and whether or not there is a reasonable chance of finding common ground or not - and if so, how. I don't actively "use" socionics in the sense of accepting or rejecting people on the basis of it.


Well that sounds cool. And yeah, it would be a bad idea of relying on it that hard. 




> The key to using it successfully is being observant, and noticing patterns of repeated behavior, _then _utilizing the theory. I sometimes make the mistake of jumping right into it, and mistype people at first. But because I'm not really using it to do anything but predict how to prepare myself mentally for coming relational dynamics, it hardly makes an impact on the situation most times.


I'm going to go out on a limb and tentatively ask: can this not be done without trying to type people? This is what I am trying out myself; Just be observant, when a conflict comes up, be even more observant, without judging, notice all the details and things going on and then you can see exactly where it went wrong and then some ideas on how to avoid it. Direct communication that's as honest as possible trumps anything else anyway. If it is not possible to do that with someone because they refuse to cooperate then that someone is not worth bothering with from a closer psychological distance.

I'm not saying that nothing in these theories is useful; I have found use in understanding some things about myself and some differences in general between me and certain kinds of people. I said "in general" because where I get wary about using the theory is typing actual people and then act based on that. I find it's better if I just use some realizations from it on a case-by-case basis for certain obstacles coming up in communication, it usually doesn't really matter what the other person's type is. Takes too long to figure out type anyway and I think it's not really possible without outright asking them to introspect on some stuff... In a closer relationship it could matter but then there is enough time to figure out things about the other person anyway. So what I'm saying with this is, can't really use type as a prediction for anything... another reason why I can't use type as predictive of anything is type is supposed to be about internal differences more than external...

Oh and what I said here applies equally to MBTI and socionics. MBTI on its own actually seems enough for what I use this stuff... I'm really really skeptical of the intertype relations in socionics.




> I don't necessarily disagree. I wasn't arguing that duality is a cure-all, you should know that because you've read my thread on why it doesn't work. This citation was to prove that there is material out there other than socionics that says your functional inverse is your optimal relationship - it isn't just socionics that says so.


Right, I didn't remember it was your thread. 




Boolean11 said:


> Those who perceive them to be incompatible focus the subjective descriptions that actually seem flawed on analysis as well as the minute differences that are present in the generalizations, the out put; ie how socionics and MBTI assign MBTI:ISTJ and Socionics:ISTj similar personas despite different functions. Equivalently that is like typing your MBTI based on the persona descriptions on personalitypage.com, most people realize that they are a little bit of every type since the generalizations are off.


Your argument could be good but... Have you ever thought about how different the Si functions are in the two theories? Forget ISTJ and ISTj and only focus on Si definitions. Now, what do you think about that?




Rim said:


> How I understood from Lenore Thompson the abstract logic function is Te and ONLY Te. Ni-Te users should theoretically understand abstract logic with ease. Ti relies on direct experience and is concrete as it recieves information through Ne-Se mainly. Thus Ti users should theoretically find it easy to work with concrete things or interconnections of these and NOT with abstract logic. Ti-Se users are supposed to be masters of this. Ti-Ne while being abstract is still connected to the real world, real connections, real possibilities.


 The umpteenth theory on what Ti and Te are. -.-

Anyway, I recall Lenore Thompson actually said that formal logic is more Te than Ti, though Ti can get to formal logic, just hard to do; she said nothing about "abstract logic", but let me know where you read that, maybe I'm wrong. What do you even mean by it? Mathematics?




> As an example I have a friend from back in highschool who says he is INTJ, he is an anlgebra genius and abstract logic is in his very nature, while my brother the ENTP hates algebra and prefers busynesss logic, capitalizing on practical opportunities "Entrepreneur" stuff, coming up with creative ideas.


Okay, I see you inserted this since I read your post  Now, try to predict what ESTP would like in logical areas and let's see if it works out for my case. 




> From what I gathered Jung mainly associated intuition with hallucination, schizophrenia, 6-th sense and abstract internal worlds associated with mental illness (in the case of Ni-users).


Yes. See: Creativity and mental illness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> He himself being logical sensory introvert aka ISTP or LSE.


LSE?! OMG.  Anecdote and true: When I once told an INTP that Jung may have been ISTP but we can't know for sure he decided he was going to be ENFJ from then on...  And went on and put ENFJ in his type profile lol... (The INTP was insisting Jung was INTP too.)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> When I started learning Socionics I used to think the same, that intertype relationships play a significant role. But in practice it turned out that no, these patterns of relating are rather vague and can be distorted by other personality aspects, like people's enneagram types.
> 
> I know Socionics places a lot of emphasis on them, but you have to remember that it's only when they are being discussed within the context of the theory. Stepping out of the box of the theory, and into real life, you begin to see that compatibility or incompatibility of IMs is only one small component of relating to others. Therefore I acknowledge that something like it exists but I don't place a lot of importance on them.


That's the thing though - my enneagram makes me into an intellectual and a social awkward one at that and I suppose I could easily be mistaken for an LII in such a sense? I constantly struggle with my Ji-domness in MBTI too. Sometimes I just can't tell what I think or feel anymore. It's all such a mess in my head. Hard to explain. I just have this on-off switch and they constantly mix together and blend and I can't say what is what. I just know it's Ji and that's about it.

I understand the theory behind it all very well but with socionics no... I just can't... see it that way. At all.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@itsme45

A mathematical formula would be abstract logic or Te related, while explaining how light behaves under certain ciscumstances in physics is Ti related concrete logic.

One relies on direct observation while the other on abstract thinking and use of representations or symbols.

Its not something specific, just a preference towards a kind of information processing that makes it easyer to understand different types of things.

Maybe I misunderstood, it makes sense to me thou, it could be crap for all I know.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rim said:


> @_itsme45_
> 
> A mathematical formula would be abstract logic or Te related, while explaining how light behaves under certain ciscumstances in physics is Ti related concrete logic.
> 
> ...


And how is it concrete to explain the nature of photons (something untangible)? I think you got your defintions of abstract and concrete logic wrong, quite honestly. Also, neither Te nor Ti are no more abstract in nature than any other function. They just define the way we process information.

I second itms45 that Te might perhaps be a bit more formal in nature as it is externally referencing to existing sources whereas Ti does not, but that's about it really. Your reaosning does sound quite... xSFP-ish here.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> And how is it concrete to explain the nature of photons (something untangible)? I think you got your defintions of abstract and concrete logic wrong, quite honestly. Also, neither Te nor Ti are no more abstract in nature than any other function. They just define the way we process information.
> 
> I second itms45 that Te might perhaps be a bit more formal in nature as it is externally referencing to existing sources whereas Ti does not, but that's about it really. Your reaosning does sound quite... xSFP-ish here.


Rational functions rely on irrational functions, this is a system, nothing is standalone. Fi -Ti requires either Ne or Se, Te-Fe requires either Si or Ni, no way around that, just as Ne is backed by Si and Se is backed by Ni and vice verso. Without perception there is nothing to judge.

Mathematical formulas are products of the mind: predictable, represented, no physical manifestation. A+B always = C. Light is something real and observations need to be made in order to discern how it functions. No matter how small the partikles, they exist as physical objects and whatever "designation" one attributes to them they will always be what they are.

The whole idea is that the information Te uses is different from the information Ti uses.

We are forgetting that everyone uses all 8 functions.

*The main difference would be that Te -Xi requires a deductive approach to things (we can predict the outcome based on the formula), while Ti-Xe requires an inductive one (the outcome is unknown and we observe, gather information in order to understand). The former is from global to specific, the latter from specific to global. Even INTPs go from specific to global and not vice verso unless it is requiered of them. The natural tendency should differ.*

Tell me what is 2+2=4 in the real world? I'm interested how you explain it.

2+2 can equal 4 apples or 4 oranges but 4 apples does not equal 4 oranges ... I can start from 4 bananas which will equal 2+2. ^^ understand?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@celticstained 


itsme45 said:


> Your argument could be good but... Have you ever thought about how different the Si functions are in the two theories? Forget ISTJ and ISTj and only focus on Si definitions. Now, what do you think about that?


I thought about this a long time ago, the essence between the two Si's is the same, Myers percieved how the "subjective focus" was some what akin to comparing new sensed data with the past; she saw how the subjective focus on the present was routed in an internal understanding; the focus on the "past", interpretation was her own distortion. Comparably Augusta saw bizarrely saw that same internal "subjective focus" but instead percieved it as focusing on "internal states" comfort or pleasure. The comonality between the two "Si" is the internal subjective focus on the present that the two authors noticed but came out with different perceptions. I wouldn't expect either Myers or Augusta to be aware sincerely that they had distortions over that function. And really going back to Jung seems to illuminate things further since he appeared to have captured its essence he most, the simple notion that "Si" had a subjective focus on present sensed data.

I have been building the perspective for months and its just that I haven't got to a point were I feel that its perfected hence my reluctance to even explain it. My halfassed performance in the earlier arguments are simply based on the fact that its feels like handing in uncompleted work, plus my general lack of motivation in taking it as a strong stance.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

LeaT said:


> That's the thing though - my enneagram makes me into an intellectual and a social awkward one at that and I suppose I could easily be mistaken for an LII in such a sense?


That's one area where enneagram and jungian type can overlap. But there are also many ways in which they don't. Temperament for example, and Reinin dichotomies. So theoretically is it possible to disentangle all the traits and separate those that are due to your enneagram type from those which are due to Socionics type.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> That's one area where enneagram and jungian type can overlap. But there are also many ways in which they don't. Temperament for example, and Reinin dichotomies. So theoretically is it possible to disentangle all the traits and separate those that are due to your enneagram type from those which are due to Socionics type.


I did and I ended up with EII, not LII.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

LeaT said:


> I did and I ended up with EII, not LII.


I see. I guess in this case using intertype relations to confirm either EII or LII would be helpful.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rim said:


> Rational functions rely on irrational functions, this is a system, nothing is standalone. Fi -Ti requires either Ne or Se, Te-Fe requires either Si or Ni, no way around that, just as Ne is backed by Si and Se is backed by Ni and vice verso. Without perception there is nothing to judge.
> 
> Mathematical formulas are products of the mind: predictable, represented, no physical manifestation. A+B always = C. Light is something real and observations need to be made in order to discern how it functions. No matter how small the partikles, they exist as physical objects and whatever "designation" one attributes to them they will always be what they are.
> 
> ...


So in your mind you can't see the abstraction of calling light photon particles and use the same mathematical formulae you cite as an example at the end of your post to explain these phenomena, even when these real world phenomena cannot be studied by the naked eye so we need to device extremely complicated and abstract models to make sense of them, e.g. Einstein's theory of relativity? Nevermind the fact that much of the natural science is actually built upon mathematics, especially the more abstract kinds, e.g. physics and chemistry because we cannot see the entirety of the phenomena we study? Theoretical physics is called theoretical physics for the simple reason that nothing that we study can actually be physically proven. We can study the physical effects and we can device models to explain how this makes sense, e.g. atoms, but we cannot actually truly study the atoms themselves as in being able to see the atoms with the naked eye. It's all abstract. 

We also use mathematics to explain the behavior of light particles and we use formal logic to explain cause and effect, e.g. A > B = C. 

The one thing I'm getting out of this post is that you actually don't really understand the science that which you speak of. You do not understand the underlying principles that drive them forward, you do not understand the underlying philosophies that we base these sciences upon nor do you understand what formal logic actually means. That we use all eight function attitudes in our everyday lives is actually quite irrelevant. That NiTe would in theory be more driven to produce say, statistics over coming up with complex models to explain unexplained phenomena is also quite irrelevant considering that this is not what you are talking about _at all_. 

Not only does your post show a clear misunderstanding of how Te and Ti function, it shows a clear misunderstanding of how most science works. That I see an apple falling from a tree and and I call this A > B = C is exactly the same thing as when I say, "I see an apple falling from a tree". You confuse the language for abstract thinking when mathematical language does one thing - it simplifies communication. What those variables mean is however entirely contextual, e.g. e=mc2. You don't understand the principles behind mathematical language at all it appears. You focus too much on the form, not on the actual theory behind it.

If anything, I'm beginning to suspect the cause for this is your own personal Pe bias.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> So in your mind you can't see the abstraction of calling light photon particles and use the same mathematical formulae you cite as an example at the end of your post to explain these phenomena, even when these real world phenomena cannot be studied by the naked eye so we need to device extremely complicated and abstract models to make sense of them, e.g. Einstein's theory of relativity? Nevermind the fact that much of the natural science is actually built upon mathematics, especially the more abstract kinds, e.g. physics and chemistry because we cannot see the entirety of the phenomena we study? Theoretical physics is called theoretical physics for the simple reason that nothing that we study can actually be physically proven. We can study the physical effects and we can device models to explain how this makes sense, e.g. atoms, but we cannot actually truly study the atoms themselves as in being able to see the atoms with the naked eye. It's all abstract.
> 
> We also use mathematics to explain the behavior of light particles and we use formal logic to explain cause and effect, e.g. A > B = C.
> 
> ...


You should read again carefully what you wrote, you'll see it reflects eactly what I said above. Also you just used ad hominem in your argument and didn't counter with a proper explanation.

If you don't see the processes manifesting in physical reality, how do you even know where to look and what abstractions to make in the first place? You don't need to look at photons to see light in the first place. 2 apples plus 2 apples is 4 apples, thus the abstraction of 2+2=4 is born and can be applied generally. From observation to theory. Its probably how they came up with numbers and math.

Math is language and language is abstraction. Thompson considered Si, Ni Fe and Te to be left brain hemisphere functions dealing with language, symbols, abstract thinking, facts. Idk if it was correct hou, not yet.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rim said:


> You should read again carefully what you wrote, you'll see it reflects eactly what I said above. Also you just used ad hominem in your argument and didn't counter with a proper explanation.
> 
> If you don't see the processes manifesting in physical reality, how do you even know where to look and what abstractions to make in the first place? You don't need to look at photons to see light in the first place. 2 apples plus 2 apples is 4 apples, thus the abstraction of 2+2=4 is born and can be applied generally. From observation to theory. Its probably how they came up with numbers and math.
> 
> Math is language and language is abstraction. Thompson considered Si, Ni Fe and Te to be left brain hemisphere functions dealing with language, symbols, abstract thinking, facts. Idk if it was correct hou, not yet.


I've already seen that one before Rim, and saying 2 + 2 = 4 is actually related to the left brain because that sort of thinking is located in the left side. Si though, not necessarily. Do you honestly think we can truly ascribe all the functions to the brain sides? Because this is actually what you are suggesting here by linking that video. 

By the way, if you've studied Nardi's research, you will see it's not THAT easy as Thompson et al. suggest it is when they link functions to brain sides. INTJs are for example predominantly right-brained, ESTJs left-brained, other types such as INFPs are a little bit between with no real preference and so on. The ONLY thing that Nardi suggests with certainty is that one area is more associated with dominant judging and perceiving in decision-making and that's about it. I for example identify myself as a right-brained person and I think this is quite a correct assessment I've made. 

See, the problem with the theories that link functions to certain brain sides is that those theories are just that, theories. They aren't even vaildated by proper research. The only one we can go to and assume to get some proper measured result which truly reflects reality is Nardi. 

The fact that you don't even understand what I am saying here suggests a lot, suffice to say. I am talking about the theory, the principles. These theories and principles are extremely abstract because I get to the theoretical core of something.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> I've already seen that one before Rim, and saying 2 + 2 = 4 is actually related to the left brain because that sort of thinking is located in the left side. Si though, not necessarily. Do you honestly think we can truly ascribe all the functions to the brain sides? Because this is actually what you are suggesting here by linking that video.
> 
> By the way, if you've studied Nardi's research, you will see it's not THAT easy as Thompson et al. suggest it is when they link functions to brain sides. INTJs are for example predominantly right-brained, ESTJs left-brained, other types such as INFPs are a little bit between with no real preference and so on. The ONLY thing that Nardi suggests with certainty is that one area is more associated with dominant judging and perceiving in decision-making and that's about it. I for example identify myself as a right-brained person and I think this is quite a correct assessment I've made.
> 
> ...


More ad hominem? Right. I'm done.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rim said:


> More ad hominem? Right. I'm done.


Same. You don't get what I mean so what's the point even. And saying you don't understand isn't an ad hominem if you clealry don't. That's just stating fact.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

actually, i can kind of see what Rim is saying (if i understand him ). 

formulas, if approached in a certain way, do seem to be Je. they are the "macro approach" to problem solving. they allow one to cut broad swaths through whatever is being worked on, taking the subject and dividing it into fewer portions. this allows for quick, easy, communicable results/visible train of thought/a show of external validity that has taken the "something" that could be invariably diced and sectioned to each individuals' subjective take and instead formed a "marker" for others that follows one sense of logic, one sense (or multiple agreed upon) paths in solving a problem. 

(generalization)
i see Te types being far more comfortable with familiarizing themselves with these markers, which, depending on levels of growth/integration, would make them naturally fall into a systems or lines of work that calls for a broader approach (i only mention "levels of growth" because i really see no reason to discount the probability of a person integrating lower functions that would alter not only their mental flow of energy, but also their behavior over time). 

i really don't think i'm a Te-type, and i don't believe that all math is Te-related or that Te shares an affinity for all forms and levels of math. for that matter, i think it's ridiculous to say that some types will be better/worse at a certain subject because i can see how the rebounding relationship between functions can lead to novel uses of functions, but, before learning these certain "methods/uses", some forms of schooling may make themselves more readily accessible to certain functions based not soley on the subject itself, but more on the frame of mind surrounding that school of thought at the time and place it is being taught (a.k.a., the function preference of the society teaching the subject overall--heavy Je, heavy Ji, etc)... in any case, i believe i'm more of a Ti user and i've always had a very hard time with learning math or any of the sciences with how they are formally taught (could be crappy schools, or maybe i'm just not that smart, lol, who knows). to me, it all seemed like grand pronouncements that no one could explain, or better yet, that something very important and key to understanding was buried far down, the link to the information presented and their exclamation always seemed to be missing. 

math formulas seem like a list of rules to remember rather than understand, and usual explanations are in themselves geared towards how the information is presented--it starts on one path and very rarely veers from it, again cutting broad swaths through the problem at hand, more interested in achieving the final goal than in seeing the why of every step (not a slant at Te-users by the way, just what i see; and again, levels of growth usually even this--and problems associated with other functions--out in time). to me, if i'm trying to understand something that's out of my grasp, you can't just say that "this" works like "this" because it just does, or that otherwise you'd be unable to solve the problem--that means nothing to me and seems like whole areas are being completely ignored... this serves a purpose in standardizing thought, but to fair, whatever method prevails at the time will naturally assert itself if it's able to so (but would a introverted function dominate society?). 

in shorter words--because a lot of that was a more of a brain dump that anything else--thought in itself is abstract. the methods by which we reach decisions are abstract regardless of which function we use, but through an inclination to reach consensus on one hand and urge to reach internal recognition on the other, what you really have is objective/subjective, and any abstraction that's viewed by a person is really just the alien quality of another's method because nothing is truly "abstract" or "concrete", it's more of a symptom of how our minds work.

edit: 

going back over some of the posts i'm not sure that the problem was really Je, lol. i might of read something that wasn't there, but oh well, it can pertain and i think it's interesting .


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Same. You don't get what I mean so what's the point even. And saying you don't understand isn't an ad hominem if you clealry don't. That's just stating fact.


:\ I understand that abstract reasoning is needed in modern science where we lack any ability to directly observe the event, however I'm arguing one thing and you another, we are completely parallel | |. You missed the point of my original post. So yeah I'm tired of talking to walls and neither am I interested in a pointless unproductive debate. This is leading nowhere, nothing worth applying is being gained here.

I'm going to go do something productive for a change.

@celticstained seems to have understood....mostly. I'm really sorry, I'm better at drawing or visualizing things...words are difficult sometimes. Functions are more like preferences and not ability. My brother as well as I are really good at algebra. We just find it too dry and straight forward...numbers are boring. (its not a preference)

*To be clear:* Je (Te-Fe-Si-Ni) types prefer to formulate a hypothesis and anticipate a clear result. 
Pe (Se-Ne-Fi-Ti) types tend to gather more data and only formulate an answer when the data clearly points towards it. 

This makes sense in terms of how things are processed from the MBTI function perspective and why the J-P split works.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

lol, not a problem at all. i know exactly what you mean. for me, the beginning is always "something" for lack of a better word--it can be an image, or sometimes it will just focus itself that way if i focus on it? really more of a feeling (if your brain have feelings other than emotion), but trying to focus on discerning it, dissecting it piece by piece, has really helped me over time to explain those feelings (when i'm in the mood to be irritated/excited), and it's gotten easier over time... and helped in other ways. like learning to think about your thinking, and then thinking about that again lol.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rim said:


> :\ I understand that abstract reasoning is needed in modern science where we lack any ability to directly observe the event, however I'm arguing one thing and you another, we are completely parallel | |. You missed the point of my original post. So yeah I'm tired of talking to walls and neither am I interested in a pointless unproductive debate. This is leading nowhere, nothing worth applying is being gained here.
> 
> I'm going to go do something productive for a change.
> 
> @_celticstained_ seems to have understood....mostly. I'm really sorry, I'm better at drawing or visualizing things...words are difficult sometimes. Functions are more like preferences and not ability. My brother as well as I are really good at algebra. We just find it too dry and straight forward...numbers are boring. (its not a preference)


I understand perfectly well what you mean but I just entirely disagree with your approach to understanding things. Do note that I even mentioned that formulae themselves can be Je. I for example mentioned how statistics is more commonly associated with Je but I think it's false to say that it must automatically be anything else than simple T-think in general.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I am ILE ENTp in Socionics and ENTP in MBTI. I honestly don't know if that's a consistency, or not (I have not gotten around to figuring out all those two-letter functions yet). 

I think there are some nice refinements to Socionics that are either missing, or incomplete, in MBTI. I think that the big split between the two was over the perceiving and judging functions. I might be wrong.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

LeaT said:


> And how is it concrete to explain the nature of photons (something untangible)? I think you got your defintions of abstract and concrete logic wrong, quite honestly. Also, neither Te nor Ti are no more abstract in nature than any other function. They just define the way we process information.
> 
> I second itms45 that Te might perhaps be a bit more formal in nature as it is externally referencing to existing sources whereas Ti does not, but that's about it really. Your reaosning does sound quite... xSFP-ish here.


I'm having a hard time figuring out why this was event relevant to the discussion in the first place?  

Anyways, @Rim, you do seem to have a dominant Perceiving function (going by JCF, not Socionics) and I'd say you seem to be using quite a lot of Intuition. I take in "details" of an experience too, only I'm sure the "details" I pay attention to are different from the details my ESFP friend pay attention to. It's very easy to get hung up on language.  

I think Socionics and MBTI are two different ways of interpreting Jung (obviously). They overlap in some way, and in other ways they are different. The descriptions of the functions have some differences from what I can see so far. They both shed light on a different aspect of each function, at least. Used together I think it's a pretty powerful tool to help figure out how we think and interact. So I think it makes sense if one person identifies with one type in MBTI but another in Socionics. I found that I am ENFp in Socionics and ENFP in MBTI. I will say I think I relate more to the Socionics description of ENFp, funnily enough. Probably because Socionics was created by an Extrovert (or at least someone with a dominant Perceiving function), right? I relate more. Haha. ^_^


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

celticstained said:


> *math formulas seem like a list of rules to remember rather than understand*, and usual explanations are in themselves geared towards how the information is presented--it starts on one path and very rarely veers from it, again cutting broad swaths through the problem at hand, more interested in achieving the final goal than in seeing the why of every step


That is only for dumb maths anyway, point understood though, my argument against that is how the generalization instead applies to irrational types not logic ones. Irrational types are the ones that are likely to entertain their minds with random nonsensical data, especially introverted irrationals who can look at the same data with multiple subjective lens. Ni doms have stupid paradoxes whilst Si doms can pay attention mundane reality. Anyway I'm coming from the interpretation of Te that is different from the MBTI stereotype, mindless worker bot. 

Going on from the critic of Myers what I saw on the stereotype on Te was a byproduct of her inability to make sense of introverted perception. Hence the "facts" that XXTJs appeared to follow seemed robotic, "lets just bulldoze and get shit done" as the stereotype exists. The neglect there was how there facts aren't actually important, "Te", but merely exist as servant of Pi functions as Jung pointed through the "Te" description. "Te" services other ends, "Pi".


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i was actually talking from the perspective of an irrational, but focused solely on judging functions in order to... i'm not even sure really--show the differences between Te and Ti in an educational system? looking at them in a vacuum, which i was doing, isn't the best way to go...

in any case, as to how it'd work for irrationals, i really don't know. to put it very simply, information input+dissecting. i think the biggest part or largest difference would be what P-function is leading. the functions that would deal with the information would still be, at their core, what they were to begin with, but i imagine that they'd be changed ever so slightly to fit the different plane they were working from (info. from the dominant). 

an even better question though: how would it look for Ji to serve Pi? would it even be recognized as such?

and by the way, i think those people who suffer the paradoxes are very interesting


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

celticstained said:


> i was actually talking from the perspective of an irrational, but focused solely on judging functions in order to... i'm not even sure really--show the differences between Te and Ti in an educational system? looking at them in a vacuum, which i was doing, isn't the best way to go...
> 
> in any case, as to how it'd work for irrationals, i really don't know. to put it very simply, information input+dissecting. i think the biggest part or largest difference would be what P-function is leading. the functions that would deal with the information would still be, at their core, what they were to begin with, but i imagine that they'd be changed ever so slightly to fit the different plane they were working from (info. from the dominant).
> 
> ...


Ji Pi loops?

Its sort of an inconclusive one since people have multiple answers for that. However the one I've found and is personally most convincing for me is that Je Pe or Ji Pi loops are unproductive and yield useless results. I got this from Jung who suggested that it was matter of impossibility to separate objects of an objective and subjective nature from each other, where even if it were possible, the conclusion would be flawed. The "objective" (Pe/Je) bring an adherence to the external (something like reality) yet alone it doesn't produce meaning, and in turn the subjective(Ji/Pi) produces meaning yet without the objective there is no validation process for the various subject sanctions lines of inquiry. 



Jung said:


> “Such a conflict, we might think, could be easily adjusted if only we clearly *discriminated objects of a subjective from those of an objective nature. Unfortunately, however, such a discrimination is a matter of impossibility, although not a few have attempted it. Even if such a separation were possible, it would be a very disastrous proceeding, since in themselves both orientations are one-sided, with a definitely restricted validity; hence they both require this mutual correction*. Thought is at once sterilized, whenever thinking is brought, to any great extent, under the influence of objective data, since it becomes degraded into a mere appendage of objective facts; in which case, it is no longer able to free itself from objective data for the purpose of establishing an abstract idea.”


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Rim said:


> A mathematical formula would be abstract logic or Te related, while explaining how light behaves under certain ciscumstances in physics is Ti related concrete logic.
> 
> One relies on direct observation while the other on abstract thinking and use of representations or symbols.
> 
> ...


Sorry this didn't make a lot of sense about "abstract logic" vs "concrete logic". LeaT already explained what I would have said about that, though.




> The main difference would be that Te -Xi requires a deductive approach to things (we can predict the outcome based on the formula), while Ti-Xe requires an inductive one (the outcome is unknown and we observe, gather information in order to understand). The former is from global to specific, the latter from specific to global. Even INTPs go from specific to global and not vice verso unless it is requiered of them. The natural tendency should differ.


I've seen too many kinds of reasonings on which types would be inductive and which would be deductive... so I'm not going into that.




Rim said:


> Math is language and language is abstraction. Thompson considered Si, Ni Fe and Te to be left brain hemisphere functions dealing with language, symbols, abstract thinking, facts. Idk if it was correct hou, not yet.


That theory about hemispheres is unproven speculation. Some people actually attribute clear expression of thoughts to Ti. And then some don't. So, good luck figuring that one out. 

Also, math is a load more things than just language. For example, for me math is often very visuo-spatial, and even when it's abstract it's not much to do with language by default... for me.




celticstained said:


> in any case, i believe i'm more of a Ti user and i've always had a very hard time with learning math or any of the sciences with how they are formally taught (could be crappy schools, or maybe i'm just not that smart, lol, who knows). to me, it all seemed like grand pronouncements that no one could explain, or better yet, that something very important and key to understanding was buried far down, the link to the information presented and their exclamation always seemed to be missing.


I'm also more of a Ti user but for some reason I only felt that way about physics, not math or other sciences. I'm only truly ok with physics if it's presented in a way where it's explained how they discovered the principles, through what observations, experiments, reasoning processes and/or if I can try it out myself or at least recall some experience that helps makes sense of the physics theory. I guess with the other sciences I could see this process without it being explicitly pointed out. Not sure why physics was an exception...




> math formulas seem like a list of rules to remember rather than understand, and usual explanations are in themselves geared towards how the information is presented--it starts on one path and very rarely veers from it, again cutting broad swaths through the problem at hand, more interested in achieving the final goal than in seeing the why of every step (not a slant at Te-users by the way, just what i see; and again, levels of growth usually even this--and problems associated with other functions--out in time). to me, if i'm trying to understand something that's out of my grasp, you can't just say that "this" works like "this" because it just does, or that otherwise you'd be unable to solve the problem--that means nothing to me and seems like whole areas are being completely ignored... this serves a purpose in standardizing thought, but to fair, whatever method prevails at the time will naturally assert itself if it's able to so (but would a introverted function dominate society?).


Yeah, I also don't like that sort of "explanation" of "this works like this just because". I totally understand your Ti's indignation with that  But with math stuff, I never had any issue, I must have somehow got the basics of the ideas in math from my own experience or something but when in school math stuff was presented I did not need any explanation, I just understood intuitively. Sure, I don't like the formulas too much, but as long as I have this understanding, as long as I "feel" the workings behind the formulas, I'm ok  So, I don't think a Ti user must have problems here. Quite the opposite; I always felt that my way of seeing math is so subjective, fits me so well that I always naturally assigned it to Ti, but maybe I'm wrong and this case of mine is something outside the scope of MBTI.  




Boolean11 said:


> I thought about this a long time ago, the essence between the two Si's is the same, Myers percieved how the "subjective focus" was some what akin to comparing new sensed data with the past; she saw how the subjective focus on the present was routed in an internal understanding; the focus on the "past", interpretation was her own distortion. Comparably Augusta saw bizarrely saw that same internal "subjective focus" but instead percieved it as focusing on "internal states" comfort or pleasure. The comonality between the two "Si" is the internal subjective focus on the present that the two authors noticed but came out with different perceptions. I wouldn't expect either Myers or Augusta to be aware sincerely that they had distortions over that function. And really going back to Jung seems to illuminate things further since he appeared to have captured its essence he most, the simple notion that "Si" had a subjective focus on present sensed data.
> 
> I have been building the perspective for months and its just that I haven't got to a point were I feel that its perfected hence my reluctance to even explain it. My halfassed performance in the earlier arguments are simply based on the fact that its feels like handing in uncompleted work, plus my general lack of motivation in taking it as a strong stance.


Ok, so if we accept "internal subjective focus on the present" as the definition, how can this be used as building block for a type and how can it be applied to any concrete manifestation in communication etc? Basically what I'm saying is that this definition is so abstract that it's not going to be practical for anything so we might as well forget about it.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Ok, so if we accept "internal subjective focus on the present" as the definition, how can this be used as building block for a type and how can it be applied to any concrete manifestation in communication etc? Basically what I'm saying is that this definition is so abstract that it's not going to be practical for anything so we might as well forget about it.


Therefore we realize that we have never progressed beyond square one, realizing that this is psuedo science. We can have a thousand and one rationalizations that are all difficult to falsify in truth.* Oh by practical you mean relate-able isn't it? (didn't catch that first read) 

But anyway continuing to play around with abstract logic, "internal subjective focus on the present" can easily be used to conjure up the types and relationship. Though this would be based purely on the premises of functions, such abstract categories. With such a generalization, on the pro side, it means that a type description could be created for the people who share such similar information processing without any "*flaws" since all representatives are accommodated. However on the down side, it would be jargon that is very difficult to understand especially when acquiring newbies, only the nerdiest would adopt interest. In a way, the generalizations help attract you people yet it invites flaws. 


To attempt to describe the type, first of all, sensation would have to be explained. The "internal subjective focus"... ??? @_itsme45_ I get your point though I don't think its impossible to explain, its just that my mind has just froze over at the moment as I realize that re-describing "Si"'s without flawed generalization is a challenge. But its not impossible and jargon could be removed though it will take time thinking.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@itsme45

This is what I was trying to get at =_= but idk how to properly explain it:

Si = what is familiar to me
Ni = there is only one correct answer and I will shift perspective till I find it

In both there is a subjective filter applied, while Ne and Se take in information as is.

Since Si and Ni are both Je functions and they both tend towards narrowing down the options one way or another, there is a preference towards predictability, use of abstractions. What is familiar to me and what am I looking for in the first place. This is why a J will prefer to plan ahead, read the instruction manual and cut through information to get at what is needed in stead of "taking it all in". Math as is learned in school plays to the Je way of preference and NOT the Pe way, aka you learn to use deductive abstract logic.

Je=any combination of Si, Ni, Fe, Te as the top 2 functions

The reverse is true for Pe. Imo one should see clearly what type of information uptake one prefers.

Example: I can't type myself precicely because I have Pe preference and refuse to apply tertiary/inferior Ni or Si to narrow down the options. I always come with more possibilities, more observations that contradict or are new. My information processing is vastly different from a left brain Je person's, I find the familliar boring, dislike predictability or cutting through potentially useful information to get what I actually need, prefer to "just explore the options or expereience things for myself".

In stead of reading the instruction manual, I get hands on and take things apart to see how they work for myself. (I never read instruction manuals...its tedious and boring).

^^ its the difference between a laser guided missile and "bomb everything so we make sure we got them all"...so to say.

Regardless of socionics or MBTI, this should be the same, functions only work one way.

ENFP is ENFp

ISTJ is ISTp

If it isn't, you mistyped in one or both. How science works or whatnot is irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is how information is processed in the function model.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

LeaT said:


> I've already seen that one before Rim, and saying 2 + 2 = 4 is actually related to the left brain because that sort of thinking is located in the left side. Si though, not necessarily. Do you honestly think we can truly ascribe all the functions to the brain sides? Because this is actually what you are suggesting here by linking that video.


You don´t seem to understand: one function isn´t completely concentrated on only one brain-half but more than less. And as you already should know Ti is connected with left Brain function Fe for example so where is your goddamn problem with the brain halfs?



> By the way, if you've studied Nardi's research,


I predominantly reject Nardis crap! :tongue:



> you will see it's not THAT easy as Thompson et al. suggest it is when they link functions to brain sides. INTJs are for example predominantly right-brained, ESTJs left-brained, other types such as INFPs are a little bit between with no real preference and so on. The ONLY thing that Nardi suggests with certainty is that one area is more associated with dominant judging and perceiving in decision-making and that's about it. I for example identify myself as a right-brained person and I think this is quite a correct assessment I've made.


Oh come on INTJs are only "right-brained" because of our preference for dominant Perception (Ni-Se/theoretical-practical) I´m definetely not an adaptive type out of experience. An INFP maybe more in the middle but that can also be derived from Thomson. Also the Static/Dynamic Dichotomy from Reinin originally from Immanuel Kant´s Critique of pure Reason (differences between Time and Space) is leading into the same direction.



> The fact that you don't even understand what I am saying here suggests a lot, suffice to say. I am talking about the theory, the principles. These theories and principles are extremely abstract because *I get to the theoretical core of something.*


*Ti* at it´s best. You dig far deeper (regardless of the result that I don´t going to judge here) as your so called Fi-dom conterpart @Rim ??? I don´t think so.

and again *Ti-Fe*



itsme45 said:


> That theory about hemispheres is unproven speculation. *Some people actually attribute clear expression of thoughts to Ti. And then some don't. So, good luck figuring that one out. *


Thats because no function is working alone. If you interact with certain the types the difference should by ultimately clear by sheer experience. *Calling this unproven speculation is just a subject superflous view without real impact.* Are you just not able to see it at the time or is this your *Ti* speaking of you? The distinction comes completely natural to me after I grasped the concept and compared it with my observations. This seems to be the same communication difference with the Question about MBTI or Socioncs were either a seperate or more of a similar system. It is connected and at the same time it is not. But internally there is synthesis so to speak order in chaos.



> Sorry this didn't make a lot of sense about "abstract logic" vs "concrete logic". LeaT already explained what I would have said about that, though.


I agree here because Ti is able to emulate Te to some extent and otherwise.



Rim said:


> Example: I can't type myself precicely because I have Pe preference and refuse to apply tertiary/inferior Ni or Si to narrow down the options. I always come with more possibilities, more observations that contradict or are new. My information processing is vastly different from a left brain Je person's, I find the familliar boring, dislike predictability or cutting through potentially useful information to get what I actually need, prefer to "just explore the options or expereience things for myself".


If this is the case then what about the ENTP who are comfortable with the way to type themselves and merge the systems?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> If this is the case then what about the ENTP who are comfortable with the way to type themselves and merge the systems?


I can't be sure without knowlage about how these ENTPs processed the information of the systems and how they arived at the conclusions. I'd require input from more then one of them to see what the pattern looks like. I have to assume that some may be mistyped and other varibales may come into play as well. I don't know as long as I lack the info. Conclusions are drawn eventually and patterns emerge. I'll find my type as well once it all "clicks" and makes sense. All possibilities need to be considered imo, including the one in which I may be wrong.

In the case of ENTPs Si will come to the aide of Ne so they should recognize what is familiar within the options and patterns they see, eventually conclusions will be reached.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> You don´t seem to understand: one function isn´t completely concentrated on only one brain-half but more than less. And as you already should know Ti is connected with left Brain function Fe for example so where is your goddamn problem with the brain halfs?
> 
> 
> I predominantly reject Nardis crap! :tongue:
> ...


Enneagram, when will you admit how much it plays a role? I'm a 5, 5 always like to dig deeper, far deeper than any other enneatype. As for the comment about functions not being concentrated on one side, I never claimed it would be. I just pointed out that the kind of logic we associate with Te is when we study the areas alone, apparently located on the left side. As for Ti, I am not as sure where it would be located. I think it's located on BOTH SIDES.

And again, I'm a right-brained person. Any test unrelated to cognitive functions suggests as much.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

LeaT said:


> *Enneagram, when will you admit how much it plays a role? I'm a 5, 5 always like to dig deeper, far deeper than any other enneatype.*


I do but ya´know I´m a 6w5 and it´s not possible that I could use this to make such changes in my mbti type dynamics. 



> As for the comment about functions not being concentrated on one side, I never claimed it would be. I just pointed out that the kind of logic we associate with Te is when we study the areas alone, apparently located on the left side. As for Ti, I am not as sure where it would be located. I think it's located on BOTH SIDES.


As I stated before it is becoming clear if we combine this with real type-interaction experience. Both brain-halfs are associated with certain thing if you don´t agree with it that doesn´t change the fact that we can indentify the functions with such characteristics.



> And again, I'm a right-brained person. Any test unrelated to cognitive functions suggests as much.


EII and LII are right-brained according to Lenore Thomson and Reinin.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> I do but ya´know I´m a 6w5 and it´s not possible that I could use this to make such changes in my mbti type dynamics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And I'm more driven to analyze tyan most INTPs I've met as well. analysis itself is not necessarily evidence of anything.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Therefore we realize that we have never progressed beyond square one


Heh good way to put it 




> To attempt to describe the type, first of all, sensation would have to be explained. The "internal subjective focus"... ??? I get your point though I don't think its impossible to explain, its just that my mind has just froze over at the moment as I realize that re-describing "Si"'s without flawed generalization is a challenge. But its not impossible and jargon could be removed though it will take time thinking.


Well do make a thread on it if you want.




Rim said:


> Since Si and Ni are both Je functions and they both tend towards narrowing down the options one way or another, there is a preference towards predictability, use of abstractions. What is familiar to me and what am I looking for in the first place. This is why a J will prefer to plan ahead, read the instruction manual and cut through information to get at what is needed in stead of "taking it all in". Math as is learned in school plays to the Je way of preference and NOT the Pe way, aka you learn to use deductive abstract logic.


I really don't think use of abstraction is exclusive to just that. As for math, I learned it my own way and it was/is abstract logic my own way. E.g. what I said above about my logic having some spatial qualities and abstraction of logic coming from that somehow. (This would be too long and off-topic to describe here unless you want)




> Example: I can't type myself precicely because I have Pe preference and refuse to apply tertiary/inferior Ni or Si to narrow down the options. I always come with more possibilities, more observations that contradict or are new. My information processing is vastly different from a left brain Je person's, I find the familliar boring, dislike predictability or cutting through potentially useful information to get what I actually need, prefer to "just explore the options or expereience things for myself".


I'm going to say I relate to that section! Though I don't necessarily dislike predictability, I need it for achieving certain goals... but I don't derive the enjoyment from familiar predictability.

And I relate to that issue too about the typing, I used to find more and more concrete observations that contradicted other stuff...  I use past tense because I don't really look for that now, I have my conclusions for the most part. 




> ENFP is ENFp
> 
> ISTJ is ISTp
> 
> If it isn't, you mistyped in one or both.


Er... I disagree about the ISTJ/ISTp point, see the Si discussion above. Also I think I mentioned Ne-PoLR vs MBTI SJ's.

Also ENFP/ENFp... some MBTI ENFP's become ENFj's/EIE's and those aren't necessarily very J-ish.



Zero11 said:


> I predominantly reject Nardis crap! :tongue:


Why? Nardi is the only person who actually experimented with this stuff in a tangible way. Please don't say you're going Jung's way and reject tangible evidence because it doesn't fit your ideas. -.-




> "That theory about hemispheres is unproven speculation. *Some people actually attribute clear expression of thoughts to Ti. And then some don't. So, good luck figuring that one out. "
> *
> Thats because no function is working alone. If you interact with certain the types the difference should by ultimately clear by sheer experience. *Calling this unproven speculation is just a subject superflous view without real impact.* Are you just not able to see it at the time or is this your *Ti* speaking of you? The distinction comes completely natural to me after I grasped the concept and compared it with my observations. This seems to be the same communication difference with the Question about MBTI or Socioncs were either a seperate or more of a similar system. It is connected and at the same time it is not. But internally there is synthesis so to speak order in chaos.


As for your argument on interacting with certain types - unfortunately it will not apply to every person out there.

About you taking issue with the fact that it is unproven speculation, I'm afraid your response does not make any logical sense. You just use value judgments there, "subject", "superfluous", "real impact". Please try to logically reason instead.

My point about Ti vs language was rather similar to the point I made about math earlier; some people can use logic verbally and them some can do it visually and some can do it abstractly and any of these can be Ti.




Zero11 said:


> As I stated before it is becoming clear if we combine this with real type-interaction experience. *Both brain-halfs are associated with certain thing *if you don´t agree with it that doesn´t change the fact that we can indentify the functions with such characteristics.


Please educate yourself first on the topic, as a start: Lateralization of brain function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> That sentence makes no sense. Destroying what exactly?


Than ignore it :dry: wasn´t really this relevant.




> Which part of that needs examples? No idea what you meant by "move alone".


I get headaches here slowly. Maybe the description "How they work with context" fits better.



> Apologies for the fact that I'm not Jung


:laughing: they are greatly appreciated




> It's not useless... e.g. you mentioned brain hemispheres in connection with MBTI then I gave you a link on that topic, it was pretty relevant. And in general it gives a good framework on typology topics if you know more about general psychology stuff. (I guess you're going to scream "Ti!!!" again lol)


nope not here :wink:



> Those INTJ friends don't need me to give a shit about Fi  They are perfectly capable of using Te and that's enough. Are you trying to say that you strictly use some Fi based approach to think about the topic I asked you about (impact blahblah stuff) and you can't think of it in any other way?


Fi is connected with Te y´know and I don´t think that an INTJ could live without it you may don´t just realize it, we are a secretive bunch.



LeaT said:


> I disagree. I actually think it's Fi.


You don´t even know what that is. You are rude and you don´t even notice it when it concerns yourself.



> Ok, so the person who claims to be an INTJ doesn't give two flying fucks about objectivity here? So you rather prefer some kind of subjective reasoning to objective measures and standards? I noticed that rather clearly when you rejected itsme45's attempt to reconcile by referring to a dictionary and you gave a subjective answer in return.


So an INTJ isn´t allowed to be subjective? Thats a shame maybe you could give me a list of rules how to behave :laughing:
It was a choice not an inherent process.



> Stop being silly and blame itsme45 for not being able to be objective because of her type would actually be a good start to have a mature and honest debate.


Your definition of silly is weird I have nothing against itsme45 I enjoyed the conversation. :shocked: to some extent 
I know from what you are coming from but you are far accustomed to your advantage and not willing to see different angles. Don´t be so cocky :frustrating:



> There's little to explain really. She's referring to how Ni can create these abstract and archetypal images in your mind where knowledge synthethizes together. That's what she means with "Zen", it all comes together. I intuit what she's saying and that makes sense to me, simply. I wouldn't describe Ni like that personally, but yes, I know fully well what she means. I would say I'm a fairly good Ni user. I identified Ni being more like my third function to me, that at least when comparing to the Beebe model it seems to fulfill the role of a child. I like to play around with Ni a lot.


The other functions were self-explanatory only Ni was stuffed with the stupid "Zen-like" so I was forced to read his descriptions. My laziness is misread as a lack of Te 
N-doms are primary lead by their interest alone without that it gets boring as hell.
I didn´t know that Dario Nardi was a "she" but yeah who cares roud: good luck Ni pro. To inuit something is Ne. (oh shit I forgot that you disregarded Lenore Thomsons understanding of what makes really sense) with two different approaches this shit goes downhill.

really good stuff:


mr. rozay said:


> All I gotta say is its really really difficult to see the difference between an INTJ and an INTP online, but in real life... In person? Huge difference.
> 
> Irl:
> 
> ...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> You don´t even know what that is. You are rude and you don´t even notice it when it concerns yourself.


Ok, so let's do it again - how does this sentence not contain strong Fi use? What's Ni about your reasoning here? By the way, it seems to be fine to attack other people based on their type, e.g. me or itsme45 based on your pre-conceived notion of us, but pointing out this hypocrisy just makes you fall back on projection using subjective logic. Last but not least, of course, I use Fi, you are just blind and haven't opened your third eye to actually understand.


> So an INTJ isn´t allowed to be subjective? Thats a shame maybe you could give me a list of rules how to behave :laughing:
> It was a choice not an inherent process.


Of course an INTJ can be subjective but most of them will definitely not behave like you are doing now. Strong Te use strives for objectivity. If you forgot, objectivity is one of the Reinin traits that defines an ILI. Most INTJs don't like subjective reasoning, they think it makes the subject itself murky. They strive for objective clarity. That's how strong Te manifests. I see you doing no such thing. Instead all I see is Fi, Fi and Fi from you.


> Your definition of silly is weird I have nothing against itsme45 I enjoyed the conversation. :shocked: to some extent
> I know from what you are coming from but you are far accustomed to your advantage and not willing to see different angles. Don´t be so cocky :frustrating:


More projection. I'm not cocky. I'm just pointing out flaws and if you can't deal with them that's your problem.


> The other functions were self-explanatory only Ni was stuffed with the stupid "Zen-like" so I was forced to read his descriptions. My laziness is misread as a lack of Te
> N-doms are primary lead by their interest alone without that it gets boring as hell.


I honestly don't think you fully understand Te based on how you respond here.


> I didn´t know that Dario Nardi was a "she" but yeah who cares roud: good luck Ni pro. To inuit something is Ne. (oh shit I forgot that you disregarded Lenore Thomsons understanding of what makes really sense) with two different approaches this shit goes downhill.


So do we need to go back to the basics? Ni and Ne are both N functions. You intuit using both. What differs is the perspective of how you intuit. The way you cling to Thomson is kind of sad actually. I'm fairly certain better use of Te would be likely to consider _more and different_ sources on the subject unless you are going to claim you're a Te dom type and this black-and-white thinking of yours is an example of inferior Fi.


> really good stuff:


So now rozay is the guru at discerning INTJ and INTP? I think it's funny you fall back on someone else's thinking and citing it as fact, especially when the only comment he wrote that's legit is that INTPs indeed tend to attack the weak points in their opponent's arguments rather than trying to find evidence and solidify their own. Seems like you got a poor understanding of both INTJ and INTP to me.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Ok, so let's do it again - how does this sentence not contain strong Fi use? What's Ni about your reasoning here?


It´s Fi you are right - but why I am talking with you? I was in a debate with itsme45 :shocked: if my Fi were actually stronger than tertiary I would already be out of any discussion with you because Fi doesn´t cares about another opinon hardly to speak.



> By the way, it seems to be fine to attack other people based on their type, e.g. me or itsme45 based on your pre-conceived notion of us, but pointing out this hypocrisy just makes you fall back on projection using subjective logic.


Us what is us? You jumped in to defend whatever it is? I don´t get it your Fe is annoying. I am aware of my doing but you lack self-reflection Telamon. :dry: How long do you want to play this stupid game? 



> Last but not least, of course, I use Fi, you are just blind and haven't opened your third eye to actually understand.
> *Of course an INTJ can be subjective but most of them will definitely not behave like you are doing now.*


Whats this third-eye thing you are talking about? I´m not religious or something and I don´t belive in a higher power.* I highly doubt your weird INTJ perception.*



> Strong Te use strives for objectivity. If you forgot, objectivity is one of the Reinin traits that defines an ILI.
> Most INTJs don't like subjective reasoning, they think it makes the subject itself murky. They strive for objective clarity. That's how strong Te manifests. I see you doing no such thing. Instead all I see is Fi, Fi and Fi from you.


You are far to theoretical thats your "problem" of course you see Fi what should you see otherwise with your onesided view and my adjusted behaviour? There wasn´t much of a topic :crazy:



> More projection. I'm not cocky. I'm just pointing out flaws and if you can't deal with them that's your problem.


You are pointing out nothing but your subjective view dominates the field, as I said self-reflection. It is tiresome to argue with you there is no exchange.



> I honestly don't think you fully understand Te based on how you respond here.


I honestly think you are think what you want to think you are blind here.



> So do we need to go back to the basics? Ni and Ne are both N functions. You intuit using both. What differs is the perspective of how you intuit. The way you cling to Thomson is kind of sad actually. I'm fairly certain better use of Te would be likely to consider _more and different_ sources on the subject unless you are going to claim you're a Te dom type and this black-and-white thinking of yours is an example of inferior Fi.


It wasn´t my Intention to begin with to feed you with Informations. There is nothing black and white I have a stance nothing more. You can´t grasp it thats obvious.



> So now rozay is the guru at discerning INTJ and INTP? I think it's funny you fall back on someone else's thinking and citing it as fact, especially when the only comment he wrote that's legit is that INTPs indeed tend to attack the weak points in their opponent's arguments rather than trying to find evidence and solidify their own. Seems like you got a poor understanding of both INTJ and INTP to me.


I don´t try to use this as an argument per se. I try to show you were the differences are and what you can´t see but you refused to do so. As I already said above you don´t understand were I am coming from and you make assumptions about logical fallacies were really nothing is. You just try to shut down Ghost. (third-eye lol)


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> I get headaches here slowly. Maybe the description "How they work with context" fits better.


Well if you want more context on the Nardi stuff, it's provided in his books. I have some ebooks, not just that drafted ppt stuff  (If interested, I can give a link in PM)



> nope not here :wink:


Now I'm surprised.




> Fi is connected with Te y´know and I don´t think that an INTJ could live without it you may don´t just realize it, we are a secretive bunch.


I know you all are pretty weird and secretive  anyhow I do know one INTJ that likes their Fi very much, but we don't have an issue as he's able to discuss anything without mixing the Fi in it unnecessarily. That's someone who thinks he has a pretty strong Fi for INTJ and he explicitly hates Ti stuff. (We joke about that Ti-hate with him and another INTJ lol.) 

And with yet another INTJ (yes a third one) I was able to discuss something specific that he normally would use Fi to think about. Yet, he had no problem taking a more T based approach instead and we were able to discuss it very well that way. It's for some reason actually awesome stuff talking with INTJ's.  

You in comparison ooze the Fi.  That's okay, but it would have been nice if you had been willing to try and present certain thoughts without mixing in Fi and without constantly accusing me of too much subjectivity. This way we can't really discuss anything in any sensible way. Though you were funny at times. 




> (oh shit I forgot that you disregarded Lenore Thomsons understanding of what makes really sense) with two different approaches this shit goes downhill.


Two different approaches? There's like 5-6 different approaches to Ne or Ni definitions in the wiki taken from her book.  Just sayin'...


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

@Zero11, have you considered ISFP for your type? Just wondering. As others noticed, you just ooze Fi, and your tertiary Ni might just be well-developed. This is not a personal attack, I'm just curious.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Now I'm surprised.


here is neutral ground there is nothing to fear 



> I know you all are pretty weird and secretive  anyhow I do know one INTJ that likes their Fi very much, but we don't have an issue as he's able to discuss anything without mixing the Fi in it unnecessarily. That's someone who thinks he has a pretty strong Fi for INTJ and he explicitly hates Ti stuff. (We joke about that Ti-hate with him and another INTJ lol.)


There are always two sides of the coin.


> And with yet another INTJ (yes a third one) I was able to discuss something specific that he normally would use Fi to think about. Yet, he had no problem taking a more T based approach instead and we were able to discuss it very well that way. It's for some reason actually awesome stuff talking with INTJ's.


Yeah thats a specific one (not the INTJ)


> You in comparison ooze the Fi.  That's okay, but it would have been nice if you had been willing to try and present certain thoughts without mixing in Fi and without constantly accusing me of too much subjectivity. This way we can't really discuss anything in any sensible way. Though you were funny at times.


Guilty here roud: it wasn´t really ideal but thats never and it seems that you rather use a rare approach on this topic.



> Two different approaches? There's like 5-6 different approaches to Ne or Ni definitions in the wiki taken from her book.  Just sayin'...


Not this shit again :laughing: my Ni already narrowed down the options. I call this the Ti approach with bad outside factors. And my own approach and it wasn´t supposed to work.



Definitely said:


> @_Zero11_, have you considered ISFP for your type? Just wondering. *As others noticed, you just ooze Fi, and your tertiary Ni might just be well-developed.* This is not a personal attack, I'm just curious.


My HSP pushes the F part and I have clearly a long way behind me with self reflection. I could fill out a Questionaire or something but this would be meanigless it would be biased all the way. I recognized myself in the ILI description in every part. Or look at the Stratviskaya Si part pretty accurate I say 

I´m not my values the only reason why I never stood back is because I reached a point of certainty. In the past I was constantly doubting I still do this but with a backup so to say. I could recognize female INTJs because I found similarities in the looks. There is really not doubt about my type if I would change that my complete understanding of this would fall apart. Also I can´t get along with ESFJ this would be no problem for an ISFP. My Sister is an ESFJ and my Father is an ISFJ I know my Super-ego and Conflictor. The ENFP dynamics are also very clear why should I be ISFP? thats ridiculous. I don´t hate stereotypes or curse the MBTI for it´s Te like caste system :happy: I´m good with ENTPs also :wink: by the way in the evaluation process I considered all of the types. But it was pretty clear that the INTJ Forum is the best place to fit. 

*I am aware of my Fi use thats my intention against Ti, if you could describe another example without LeaT or topics in a normal state that would be of use.* I ooze Fi since when? Since my last "loaded" post nah how obvious :dry: There is no point in arguing with her with such a onesided understanding it´s just a waste. 

If you still want to consider it I have no problem with that I just stated my experience. It would be of no use to consider something again and again and again. 

Its useless to argue without Fi when you want it to be part of the evaluation process. It would be wasted potential to left it behind.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Being sensitive has nothing to do with being an F. I'm also most likely a highly sensitive person but I don't think I'm an MBTI F because I don't reason like one. It doesn't mean I'm not sensitive to my surroundings though, or can't be emotionally sensitive. The way you reason just reeks Fi, not Te. If Te was your primary judging function, I think it would be more apparent. And just because you identify with a description it doesn't mean you are that type of course. Nor does it mean that the intertype chart is always right. If that's true, then I'd hate on itsme45 too. I think there's much more to relationships than that. Enneagram seems to me be the far most important role in whether people get along or not regardless of their cognitive make-up. The fact that I react more strongly when people have a specific enneagram combination over MBTI/sociotype seems to reinforce this view.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

I could give you more material but your Ti would just disregard it as always. So why even bother to do so? My HSP development is far different from yours because I learned to appreciate it´s merits in a Fi-dom way. Thats were my sureness comes from and not from an ineherent value system.



LeaT said:


> Being sensitive has nothing to do with being an F.


Thats not what I said I mean that it alters your preference.



> I'm also most likely a highly sensitive person but I don't think I'm an MBTI F because I don't reason like one. It doesn't mean I'm not sensitive to my surroundings though, or can't be emotionally sensitive.


How can you know that in the first place? I need to eradicate it from Jung.



> The way you reason just reeks Fi, not Te. If Te was your primary judging function, I think it would be more apparent.


Thats just your aversion against Fi.



> And just because you identify with a description it doesn't mean you are that type of course.


I indentify with many clear Ni, INTJ or ILI descriptions











> Nor does it mean that the intertype chart is always right.


As I already stated you can´t measure something without your logical analysis this is a huge disadvantage for native recognition. Ni rulez!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> I could give you more material but your Ti would just disregard it as always. So why even bother to do so? My HSP development is far different from yours because I learned to appreciate it´s merits in a Fi-dom way. Thats were my sureness comes from and not from an ineherent value system.


That's actually quite irrelevant because as you write below...


> Thats not what I said I mean that it alters your preference.


But your judging functions are just how you reason. I really don't see how being sensitive to external stimuli would inherently change this somehow.


> How can you know that in the first place? I need to eradicate it from Jung.


Go ahead, whatever.


> Thats just your aversion against Fi.


No, that's just my aversion towards people who excuse their poor-ass reasoning skills and blame it on functions. I don't have an aversion towards Fi as much as I have an aversion towards immature people. 



> I indentify with many clear Ni, INTJ or ILI descriptions :wink:


And I don't identify with inferior Fe so your point being? I see a lot of people identify with a lot of things, mostly because it fits their personal perception of how they are like, but upon further examination the truth is usually revealed to be none of those things they claim they are. I see such a disrepancy here.


> As I already stated you can´t measure something without your logical analysis this is a huge disadvantage for native recognition. Ni rulez!


Again, that's not Ni reasoning, that's Fi.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

LeaT said:


> That's actually quite irrelevant because as you write below...


I´m satisfied to this point.



> But your judging functions are just how you reason. I really don't see how being sensitive to external stimuli would inherently change this somehow.


Aaaand whats the natural outcome whats the result of more Input? You are accustomed to process more information than the average person. That is a huge change in everything.



> No, that's just my aversion towards people who excuse their poor-ass reasoning skills and blame it on functions.


"poor-ass reasoning" if thats not a T-dom approach than what?



> I don't have an aversion towards Fi as much as I have an aversion towards immature people.


I never understood this concept I was already "mature" as a child. This development is an illusion the person remains good or bad. Thats an explanation for mental kids.




> I see a lot of people identify with a lot of things, mostly because it fits their personal perception of how they are like, but upon further examination the truth is usually revealed to be none of those things they claim they are. I see such a disrepancy here.


Thats not my personal perception I wouldn´t point it out without validation of the cause. You on the other side seem to be outspoken about it. I would never use such a non-strategic approach. The person with the "personal perception" would go into defense. This is counterproductive :frustrating:



> Again, that's not Ni reasoning, that's Fi.


The process itself not the statement :dry:


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> There are always two sides of the coin.


Te/Fi coin?




> Yeah thats a specific one (not the INTJ)


He can talk about anything without using Fi. I only highlighted the specific instance of a heavy Fi-loaded topic that he liked to think about. (Of course only Fi-loaded for him, not for me.) The point was he can still drop the Fi when discussing it with me. Helping communication and objective discussion.




> Guilty here roud: it wasn´t really ideal but thats never and it seems that you rather use a rare approach on this topic.


You mean in terms of Ti use?



> I am aware of my Fi use thats my intention against Ti, if you could describe another example without LeaT or topics in a normal state that would be of use. I ooze Fi since when? Since my last "loaded" post nah how obvious :dry: There is no point in arguing with her with such a onesided understanding it´s just a waste.


You used Fi a lot of times outside of argument with LeaT. 

And I'm not sure how one can tell who has how much of an one-sided understanding. :Rolleyes:

Btw, I'd like to one day understand why INTJ's hate Ti so much lol. You're not the first one who says they are INTJ *and* hate Ti way of thinking.




> I never understood this concept I was already "mature" as a child. This development is an illusion the person remains good or bad. Thats an explanation for mental kids.


 I know that gets off topic here, but the illusion one, was it a joke?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't know about others but I can definitely not just pick and choose my function perspective depending on who I am discussing with. I can be wary of trying to pick subjects that are likely to appeal to them more or frame it in a way to make it more appealing but this does not mean that I inherently change my own personal perspective of things. I don't think I can start "Fe-ing" people when they annoy me. We have no active control of our functions in such a sense. 

And this one, essentially:



> You used Fi a lot of times outside of argument with LeaT.


As for INTJs hating on Ti, I don't think it's so much that they hate on Ti is that immature INTJs have problems to deal with the more subjective experience of Ti. INTJs want verification and standardization when immature. They want things to be tangible and concrete in a theoretical sense of the word. A dominant or auxiliary Ti user doesn't need any of those things necessarily. Just like with the INTJ, it takes maturity to appreciate the need for verification and standardization. 

It's just that the differences between Ti and Te sometimes makes it hard to understand where people are coming from. 

And also this:


> And I'm not sure how one can tell who has how much of an one-sided understanding. :Rolleyes:


Compromise is a good thing.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't know about others but I can definitely not just pick and choose my function perspective depending on who I am discussing with. I can be wary of trying to pick subjects that are likely to appeal to them more or frame it in a way to make it more appealing but this does not mean that I inherently change my own personal perspective of things. I don't think I can start "Fe-ing" people when they annoy me. We have no active control of our functions in such a sense. 

And this one, essentially:



> You used Fi a lot of times outside of argument with LeaT.


As for INTJs hating on Ti, I don't think it's so much that they hate on Ti is that immature INTJs have problems to deal with the more subjective experience of Ti. INTJs want verification and standardization when immature. They want things to be tangible and concrete in a theoretical sense of the word. A dominant or auxiliary Ti user doesn't need any of those things necessarily. Just like with the INTJ, it takes maturity to appreciate the need for verification and standardization. 

It's just that the differences between Ti and Te sometimes makes it hard to understand where people are coming from. 

And also this:


> And I'm not sure how one can tell who has how much of an one-sided understanding. :Rolleyes:


Compromise is a good thing. 

Also, last but not least, acting butthurt is not a good way to show off with your maturity. Of course I will attack your arguments when you claim that Lenore Thomson's description of Ti is de facto correct when I can't even recognize myself in it. If you can't deal with that it's your problem, not mine. Then you got issues dealing with people obviously claiming the reality as you see it being false in some way or another and it is quite arrogant of you to assume that your perception would somehow be more correct than my personal experiences.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

So much Ji disharmony all over the place. Make it stop. :frustrating:
I think that while there is a degree of overlap between the functions in MBTI and socionics, they are two completely different systems. Especially in their interpretation of judging functions (T and F).


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Debates that square of "Dynamic Logic" against "Static Logic", don't really square off well enough when "Te" and "Ti" are at odds with each other. Pi types will only respect a common "Te" premises that mutually observes the current state of "facts" thus allowing the perception to mold itself around the given facts. And contrary "Ti" via Pe takes snap shorts of reality then assembles the given logic, molding facts around the perception, snap shorts. In arguments its a recipe for a shitstorm when the "facts" don't square up with the "snap shots", within the two subjective perceptions; hence "Ti" will hurl insults to how Je logic refuses to assemble itself around the "factual" snapshots it has, whilst in turn "Te" equivalently mocks Ji logic's inability to mold itself around new superior "factual" facts.

Ti (Pe) criticism = update your logic around the new snap shots of reality (Pe). 
(Pi) Te criticism = update your logic around the new facts being given by reality (Te).

BTW a Ti type could also perceive the two systems as being compatible and in contrast similarity a Te type could perceive the two systems as being mutually incompatible.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Te/Fi coin?





> He can talk about anything without using Fi. I only highlighted the specific instance of a heavy Fi-loaded topic that he liked to think about. (Of course only Fi-loaded for him, not for me.) The point was he can still drop the Fi when discussing it with me. Helping communication and objective discussion.


That what you see as Fi wouldn´t appear at all an INTJ wouldn´t use Te he would just be quiet and say nothing. So why the heck is everyone expecting Te?



> You mean in terms of Ti use?


Nope that would be to easy but I can´t define this one.



> You used Fi a lot of times outside of argument with LeaT.


As already stated above there were nothing.



> And I'm not sure how one can tell who has how much of an one-sided understanding. :Rolleyes:


Thats unfortunate for you :sad: and LeaT can´t see it. She is just trying to pick everything apart what doesn´t fit her.



> Btw, I'd like to one day understand why INTJ's hate Ti so much lol. You're not the first one who says they are INTJ *and* hate Ti way of thinking.


It comes ever with Fe reasoning :frustrating: it tries to manipulate and is pleased with this unethical approach without personal values but thats just one part. 



> I know that gets off topic here, but the illusion one, was it a joke?


Nope I am dead serious :dry: that´s not Fi that´s my HSP approach.



LeaT said:


> ..... Of course I will attack your arguments when you claim that Lenore Thomson's description of Ti is de facto correct when I can't even recognize myself in it. If you can't deal with that it's your problem, not mine. Then you got issues dealing with people obviously claiming the reality as you see it being false in some way or another and it is quite arrogant of you to assume that your perception would somehow be more correct than my personal experiences.


Why is it arrogant? What makes your pseudo-superb logic so superior? Exactly Nothing you think that you are right infact you are not. If Lenore Thomsons Ti description is a bit S-biased and? Whats your problem with that? I think you don´t understood the MBTI whatever just desregarding all other than Ti approaches. Talking about perception you are basing your perception on your logic :laughing:

When something makes sense to me I don´t need to put it into a logical framework.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Nor does it mean that the intertype chart is always right. If that's true, then I'd hate on itsme45 too. I think there's much more to relationships than that. Enneagram seems to me be the far most important role in whether people get along or not regardless of their cognitive make-up. The fact that I react more strongly when people have a specific enneagram combination over MBTI/sociotype seems to reinforce this view.


I agree here. The whole 'intertype relationship' stuff has been bothering me lately. The dynamics between my INTJ boyfriend and I are definitely much better understood by observing how our enneagram types come into play (he is an sx/sp 9w1 and I am sx/sp 6w7.) I have another good INTJ friend who is also a type 6, like me. The two of them are very different; the type 9 seems more INFPish at times and the type 6 could easily be mistaken for an ISTJ (based on the stereotypical MBTI descriptions). I am 90% sure they are both Ni-doms though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KookyTookie said:


> I agree here. The whole 'intertype relationship' stuff has been bothering me lately. The dynamics between my INTJ boyfriend and I are definitely much better understood by observing how our enneagram types come into play (he is an sx/sp 9w1 and I am sx/sp 6w7.) I have another good INTJ friend who is also a type 6, like me. The two of them are very different; the type 9 seems more INFPish at times and the type 6 could easily be mistaken for an ISTJ (based on the stereotypical MBTI descriptions). I am 90% sure they are both Ni-doms though.


I definitely agree as I react much more strongly against certain enneatypes than I do versus MBTI/socionics. I notice a tendency where I for example seem to have issues with strong superego fixed types. I feel like they always impose their logic and worldview on me and can be extremely inflexible in how they think. In comparison, I tend to get along great with most other 5s, 8s, 9s to a degree, 4s but it depends on the 4 and so on. And again, this seems to be irregardless of MBTI/sociotype even though of course certain types seem to be more likely to share enneagram type than others.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I definitely agree as I react much more strongly against certain enneatypes than I do versus MBTI/socionics. I notice a tendency where I for example seem to have issues with strong superego fixed types. I feel like they always impose their logic and worldview on me and can be extremely inflexible in how they think. In comparison, I tend to get along great with most other 5s, 8s, 9s to a degree, 4s but it depends on the 4 and so on. And again, this seems to be irregardless of MBTI/sociotype even though of course certain types seem to be more likely to share enneagram type than others.


I think all of these theories and systems are a great tool for *exploring *(NOT predicting) relationship dynamics and different perspectives. It might be the 6 in me, but I am highly skeptical when it comes to putting people into such neat little boxes. I think, as an N-dom, I may be at risk of getting too carried away when considering all the possibilities and what-if's that emerge from studying all of these ideas. It's frustratingly impossible to reconcile all of this information with real-life experiences that I have had with people. :bored:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KookyTookie said:


> I think all of these theories and systems are a great tool for *exploring *(NOT predicting) relationship dynamics and different perspectives. It might be the 6 in me, but I am highly skeptical when it comes to putting people into such neat little boxes. I think, as an N-dom, I may be at risk of getting too carried away when considering all the possibilities and what-if's that emerge from studying all of these ideas. It's frustratingly impossible to reconcile all of this information with real-life experiences that I have had with people. :bored:


On an unrelated sidenote - are you CP or phobic? And yes, I agree. It can be useful when exploring relationships and get a better grasp why they are the way they are.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

LeaT said:


> On an unrelated sidenote - are you CP or phobic? And yes, I agree. It can be useful when exploring relationships and get a better grasp why they are the way they are.


I'm undecided. I think I'm mainly phobic but there is definitely a strong CP streak in me (for some reason, in my experience, this seems to surface when I get into heated conversations with type 3s and type 8s )

I'm pretty much a walking contradiction XD.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KookyTookie said:


> I'm undecided. I think I'm mainly phobic but there is definitely a strong CP streak in me (for some reason, in my experience, this seems to surface when I get into heated conversations with type 3s and type 8s )
> 
> I'm pretty much a walking contradiction XD.


I see, because I seem to clash a lot with CP 6s.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I see, because I seem to clash a lot with CP 6s.


I think my CP side emerges when something really clashes with my Fi-values or my boundaries are pushed. It shocks most people when that happens. Generally, I am open-minded and warm towards people. If I smell a rat I'll keep a safe distance and observe closely. I keep most people at arms length despite being perceived by most as 'popular.'


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KookyTookie said:


> I think my CP side emerges when something really clashes with my Fi-values or my boundaries are pushed. It shocks most people when that happens. Generally, I am open-minded and warm towards people. If I smell a rat I'll keep a safe distance and observe closely. I keep most people at arms length despite being perceived by most as 'popular.'


Makes sense. I feel that CP in contrast can be very imposing and I suppose I take offense as an ego type.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Makes sense. I feel that CP in contrast can be very imposing and I suppose I take offense as an ego type.


I can understand that. I find some CP types hard to deal with myself; I tend to get along better with phobic 6's. Spending too much time with CP types can either contribute to my naturally anxious disposition; or inspire me to embrace my 'dark-side' and kick ass ;P


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KookyTookie said:


> I can understand that. I find some CP types hard to deal with myself; I tend to get along better with phobic 6's. Spending too much time with CP types can either contribute to my naturally anxious disposition; or inspire me to embrace my 'dark-side' and kick ass ;P


I also think the fact you got 9 as second fix matters. It makes you more calm in general I think.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I also think the fact you got 9 as second fix matters. It makes you more calm in general I think.


Definitely. For a while I flirted with the idea that I might be a 9. Before that, I was convinced I was 7w6. I am pretty certain I am a head-type core though. I analyse and doubt everything (especially my own judgement) and I am most definitely driven by anxiety. I would say that my INTJ 9w1 boyfriend is more trusting of people than I am. He has huge problems when it comes to asserting and expressing his needs. I find that I am constantly having to force him to be more direct with me. Sometimes I feel like I am the 'thinker' and he is the 'feeler' in our relationship (take that, MBTI stereotypes!) 

I don't know if it makes any difference but I think I'm a fairly healthy 6. I wasn't always though, I used to be very unhealthy. In the past 9 months I have really focused on self development and overcoming some pretty painful personal childhood issues. I definitely feel more at 'peace' than I ever have. 

There is always room for more improvement though.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

What's the difference between phobic and counter phobic?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> That what you see as Fi wouldn´t appear at all an INTJ wouldn´t use Te he would just be quiet and say nothing. So why the heck is everyone expecting Te?


No, trust me, these INTJ guys I'm talking about can actually say a lot without mixing Fi reasoning into it. With Te there's at least stating of the facts (and some neat Ni along with it) and then I can process the stuff said in my own way. With Fi reasoning, I can't really even start processing it 



> Thats unfortunate for you :sad: and LeaT can´t see it. She is just trying to pick everything apart what doesn´t fit her.


Sorry I was being somewhat cynical  

To be serious, taking into account this is about understanding of a *theory*, without having further objective evidence and trying not to be biased, what she thinks is just as valid as what you think, not any more one-sided. (I'm sorry maybe I sound too relative/subjective to you now haha.)

Oh but also a way to determine who's less one-sided, would be checking which one of you relies more on checking real life facts. That one of you two would be less one-sided in understanding. Another way for *me* personally is to see who is willing to explain and justify their opinion more.

And I think it's perfectly fine to pick stuff apart that doesn't make sense at the moment. I do that myself  Just some sensibility is needed to be open to processing counter-arguments. 



> It comes ever with Fe reasoning :frustrating: it tries to manipulate and is pleased with this unethical approach without personal values but thats just one part.


The INTJ's I talk to have a different issue with Ti, as far as I could understand, their problem is not ethics* related, it's more about taking issue with this analytical approach breaking things up in a subjective way that their NiTe doesn't feel is natural. Just what I'm not sure about is how it feels unnatural to them.

*: Sorry but you really sounded Fi-dom there and not INTJ  The INTJ that I mentioned that claims to have a lot of Fi, even he admitted that Te comes before Fi for him (example was him not being an actual vegetarian in practice - he thought protection of animals was an important issue but he had Te reasoning ready to justify why he was not doing anything about it in terms of his eating habits).

Note I'm not saying you can't be INTJ, I don't know you at all. Just talking about my observations.




> What makes your pseudo-superb logic so superior? Exactly Nothing


Ok I'm not going to try and explain to a Fi-user how the feeling of logical consistency can be very useful in some cases objectively too... 




> you think that you are right infact you are not. If Lenore Thomsons Ti description is a bit S-biased and? Whats your problem with that?


That question was not serious was it? The description was supposed to be just describing Ti, nothing else, so it did not meet that objective. And, if it only applies to half of the Ti types out there then it's lacking in precision... and yeah, obviously less useful too. Also, I'm saying all this while the fact is that I see myself a LOT in the Lenore Thompson Ti description and I love the description. I realise I just happen to be one of the luckier types for being able to identify with that description.  




> I think you don´t understood the MBTI whatever just desregarding all other than Ti approaches.


You know, I was once thinking that people from each type would be the most authentic about understanding their respective dominant functions. E.g. Ti-doms best at understanding and explaining Ti, Fe-doms at Fe, and so on.




> When something makes sense to me I don´t need to put it into a logical framework.


Yeah that's something those INTJ's meant when talking about their Ti hate  I actually find it pretty cool, too... that is, that they don't have to rely on frameworks.





LeaT said:


> I don't know about others but I can definitely not just pick and choose my function perspective depending on who I am discussing with. I can be wary of trying to pick subjects that are likely to appeal to them more or frame it in a way to make it more appealing but this does not mean that I inherently change my own personal perspective of things.


I did talk about one INTJ "dropping Fi" but that was just a description of the communication, he did still have Fi going on somewhere, I'm sure. 




> As for INTJs hating on Ti, I don't think it's so much that they hate on Ti is that immature INTJs have problems to deal with the more subjective experience of Ti. INTJs want verification and standardization when immature. They want things to be tangible and concrete in a theoretical sense of the word. A dominant or auxiliary Ti user doesn't need any of those things necessarily. Just like with the INTJ, it takes maturity to appreciate the need for verification and standardization.


I understood the need for all that when learning about methodology of scientific research (we had to follow all these steps when doing research papers but it made sense with explanation) and also in connection with philosophy of scientific thinking. Really good stuff.

Btw, what is "tangible and concrete in a theoretical sense of the word"? Can you elaborate on that a bit?




FacelessBeauty said:


> So much Ji disharmony all over the place. Make it stop. :frustrating:
> I think that while there is a degree of overlap between the functions in MBTI and socionics, they are two completely different systems. Especially in their interpretation of judging functions (T and F).


Sorry for adding to the disharmony but I hope it was at least a good demonstration and actual example of Ti/Fi hate. 

Btw, what is different in F/T function interpretation between MBTI and socionics? You mean the J/P difference or something else?




Boolean11 said:


> In arguments its a recipe for a shitstorm when the "facts" don't square up with the "snap shots", within the two subjective perceptions; hence "Ti" will hurl insults to how Je logic refuses to assemble itself around the "factual" snapshots it has, whilst in turn "Te" equivalently mocks Ji logic's inability to mold itself around new superior "factual" facts.


I dunno, all that sounds so great but I think my problem is more if someone is lazy or something to explain their thoughts. I'm ok with just fact listings if there is enough information to go by (you maybe call that taking snapshots..) and if the discussion partner is patient enough to answer a few "why" questions (again you maybe call this allowing a chance for Ji user to assemble the logic around the snapshots). Really, that simple, tolerance and patience to explain stance. Oh and not getting too offended by the other person countering what one says lol. I'm willing to do these myself. I'm really going to want to develop my own theory on optimizing communication between any two types based on requirement of non-type related traits only -.-


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

Now why do you guys see Fi in zero11? I understand that he is now going for personal attacks, but does that specifically show Fi? It's you two attacking him so of course he's a little agitated. I'd be amazed if anyone comes out of this discussion having changed any minds. 

On a side note, I identify a certain class of people by their desire to inflict their conclusions on the world and their refusal to ever doubt themselves or change the decisions they've made. I attribute this to LII and INTJ one and the same but you may call it whatever you wish. I don't mean to bash all INTJs, just some of them. Maybe even our minds are just incompatible, but I never understand why they are so sure of themselves. 

@_itsme45_, you represent well for all ESTPs because you are willing to change your mind in a debate and you don't ignore reality. 

On another unrelated note, you should tell me what type I am.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> What's the difference between phobic and counter phobic?


Counter Phobic 6's are people who is usually unaware of their insecurities, and tends to be very aggressive and untrusting of other people/their. They are insecure in their relationships with other people, and tend to have a strong individualistic streak because of it. They come of as 8ish, but they lack the desire of actually controlling other people for the sake of controlling other people, unlike the 8. They are also less likely to be vengeful as well.

Phobic sixes aren't necessarily the exact opposite of CP 6's, but instead of being insecure with their relationships with other people, they are largely insecure with themselves. As such, they are generally more sensitive and submissive compared to the counter phobic 6s. Though they are still likely to test people, and are still not very trusting of others, as well as themselves.

At least that's the general gist of it.

As for the technical definition of Counter Phobia. It just means facing your fears, by actively seeking it, and trying to over come them.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

esq said:


> Now why do you guys see Fi in zero11? I understand that he is now going for personal attacks, but does that specifically show Fi? It's you two attacking him so of course he's a little agitated. I'd be amazed if anyone comes out of this discussion having changed any minds.
> 
> On a side note, I identify a certain class of people by their desire to inflict their conclusions on the world and their refusal to ever doubt themselves or change the decisions they've made. I attribute this to LII and INTJ one and the same but you may call it whatever you wish. I don't mean to bash all INTJs, just some of them. Maybe even our minds are just incompatible, but I never understand why they are so sure of themselves.
> 
> ...


Several of us are seeing it, and it's because the way he reasons is much too subjective in a value-sense. I don't think agitation has anything to do with it really, more than the ability of actually showing his _true_ type as we are likely to shed any images of ourselves while under stress and it's harder to maintain them.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

esq said:


> Now why do you guys see Fi in zero11? I understand that he is now going for personal attacks, but does that specifically show Fi? It's you two attacking him so of course he's a little agitated. I'd be amazed if anyone comes out of this discussion having changed any minds.


I think personal attacks don't have to be Fi. I didn't really take anything in this thread as an attack anyway. And I'm not personally attacking anyone, I don't have a problem with Zero11 in any personal way. 

So with Fi, I meant stuff where I asked for clear reasoning and I just got this sort of stuff like _"Calling this unproven speculation is just a subject superfluous view without real impact"_. (Afterwards unfortunately I never managed to get him out of his shell and make him talk about his viewpoint in more detail. That's what's meant by "secretive bunch" eh? )




> On a side note, I identify a certain class of people by their desire to inflict their conclusions on the world and their refusal to ever doubt themselves or change the decisions they've made. I attribute this to LII and INTJ one and the same but you may call it whatever you wish. I don't mean to bash all INTJs, just some of them. Maybe even our minds are just incompatible, but I never understand why they are so sure of themselves.


As for you seeing MBTI(?) INTJ's in that way, hehehe... I do see most MBTI INTJ's as being pretty sure of their conclusions, one INTJ did mention at one point though that internally he is a bit more fluid than that really. If I understood that right, he meant he just takes his time with lots of information before changing anything. Do you see that attitude with ILIs too?

Oh and a datapoint from the other side... there's this another INTJ (the one that claims he has "lots of Fi"), he's different, he isn't afraid to show he's often a pretty undecisive person and he doesn't try to inflict his conclusions. He also takes his time with information not unlike the other INTJ. This one just doesn't jump to conclusions fast. Humm. What do you make of that? 




> _itsme45_, you represent well for all ESTPs because you are willing to change your mind in a debate and you don't ignore reality.


Eh? I'll say, when I'm pretty sure about something then of course I need strong arguments to change my opinion. It has happened before . But some people say I'm difficult to argue with. Then some don't have a problem with it.. So are you really thinking I'm ok to argue with or are you just being sarcastic? As for someone's tendency for ignoring reality or not, I'm not sure if that's a type related thing. 




> On another unrelated note, you should tell me what type I am.


No idea, I don't really like to type people randomly, I said to Zero11 too that I don't know him. I understand INTJ's have Fi and some of them do like to focus on Fi a lot more than other INTJ's. And as for you, I know you even less than him... was this request to get typed some weird form of sarcasm? Sorry I don't get it.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> No, trust me, these INTJ guys I'm talking about can actually say a lot without mixing Fi reasoning into it. With Te there's at least stating of the facts (and some neat Ni along with it) and then I can process the stuff said in my own way. With Fi reasoning, I can't really even start processing it


I never doubted it :sad: I just highlighted it. (Ti)



> Sorry I was being somewhat cynical
> 
> To be serious, taking into account this is about understanding of a *theory*, without having further objective evidence and trying not to be biased, what she thinks is just as valid as what you think, not any more one-sided. (I'm sorry maybe I sound too relative/subjective to you now haha.)


It´s not only about understanding a theory it´s about what lies between it. You can´t bring for everything evidence in form of data into a discussion :angry: thats far from efficient. And then making basless assumptions about my use of Fi without understanding it especially in the form of context. There are factors that have distorted the picture and already it is considered to be complete and clear (logical correct 1?1=2). What she thinks isn´t immediately what is! and to be making things worse it is accepted with such a speed and determination that details from both sides are overlooked continuously. The false assumptions are further developed into more and more specific wrong views on the topic itself.



> Oh but also a way to determine who's less one-sided, would be checking which one of you relies more on checking real life facts.


You can´t really see that on the internet :mellow:



> That one of you two would be less one-sided in understanding. Another way for *me* personally is to see who is willing to explain and justify their opinion more.


Idiots that are straightforward (less doubters, less error-checkers) are more big picture? :crazy: That is a two-edged sword I mean if the picture is blurred this leads completely into the wrong direction and causes more harm than it shows real results. 


> And I think it's perfectly fine to pick stuff apart that doesn't make sense at the moment.


You can´t pick something apart where is nothing to accomplish it´s like picking the wrong device apart it just sucks time out.



> I do that myself  Just some sensibility is needed to be open to processing counter-arguments.


Counter-arguments againts a different understanding without a middle point hitting -nah good luck with that.



> The INTJ's I talk to have a different issue with Ti, as far as I could understand, their problem is not ethics* related, it's more about taking issue with this analytical approach breaking things up in a subjective way that their NiTe doesn't feel is natural. Just what I'm not sure about is how it feels unnatural to them.


Thats even more half-assed as my Fe bundled example but touches the Logical part. Ti is not effective for Te - a person has chosen either the introverted or the extroverted approach if we INTJs would use Ti above a certain limit it has no value and we feel betrayed because the Te approach would have make it easier (Fe manipulation).



> *: Sorry but you really sounded Fi-dom there and not INTJ  The INTJ that I mentioned that claims to have a lot of Fi, even he admitted that Te comes before Fi for him (example was him not being an actual vegetarian in practice - he thought protection of animals was an important issue but he had Te reasoning ready to justify why he was not doing anything about it in terms of his eating habits).


You give too much weight to stressing the individual functions. A Fi-dom is lead by his/her values my drive was that too but I´m not involved about my self-image I try to make an logical Impact without too much stress. Fuck Ti :laughing:
I wouldn´t judge with so little information. 




> Ok I'm not going to try and explain to a Fi-user how the feeling of logical consistency can be very useful in some cases objectively too...


good point :wink:



> That question was not serious was it? The description was supposed to be just describing Ti, nothing else, so it did not meet that objective. And, if it only applies to half of the Ti types out there then it's lacking in precision... and yeah, obviously less useful too. Also, I'm saying all this while the fact is that I see myself a LOT in the Lenore Thompson Ti description and I love the description. I realise I just happen to be one of the luckier types for being able to identify with that description.


I have not such a problem with holes I am used to stuff them :angry: a nitpicky approach is slow and useless. I lack the Fe to break such things.



> You know, I was once thinking that people from each type would be the most authentic about understanding their respective dominant functions. E.g. Ti-doms best at understanding and explaining Ti, Fe-doms at Fe, and so on.


Don´t worry she is capable of Ti but thats it because this shit needs outside of typology some requirements. 



> Yeah that's something those INTJ's meant when talking about their Ti hate  I actually find it pretty cool, too... that is, that they don't have to rely on frameworks.


If this is the case (sense) it is already logical placed somewhere.



itsme45 said:


> I think personal attacks don't have to be Fi. I didn't really take anything in this thread as an attack anyway. And I'm not personally attacking anyone, I don't have a problem with Zero11 in any personal way.
> 
> So with Fi, I meant stuff where I asked for clear reasoning and I just got this sort of stuff like _"Calling this unproven speculation is just a subject superfluous view without real impact"_. (Afterwards unfortunately I never managed to get him out of his shell and make him talk about his viewpoint in more detail. That's what's meant by "secretive bunch" eh? )


No thats not what I meant. I was fuzzy yeah it tires me out to reason with such folks in forced way.



> Oh and a datapoint from the other side... there's this another INTJ (the one that claims he has "lots of Fi"), he's different, he isn't afraid to show he's often a pretty undecisive person and he doesn't try to inflict his conclusions. He also takes his time with information not unlike the other INTJ. This one just doesn't jump to conclusions fast. Humm. What do you make of that?


I am not a Fi claimer like him that would be more of a E9 approach for example. Fi also doesn´t mean that one doesn´t jumps to conclusions fast.



> But some people say I'm difficult to argue with.


You are :laughing: thats a good and a bad thing.

My ability to give clear explanations of my Ni thought process is highly dependent on my energy level and sadly this level is mostly very low because of the flora (fields and fields without enough trees for clear air) and the negative influences. So I disintegrate into introverted states. This involves collecting and flourishing informations and placing this into positions. I have a hard time to verbalize my thoughts.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> It´s not only about understanding a theory it´s about what lies between it. You can´t bring for everything evidence in form of data into a discussion :angry: thats far from efficient.


Maybe not everything but some evidence, facts or at least some more details put on the table is better than not at all justifying or at least elaborating on statements. See my problem? That's often my issue in debates with some people.




> And then making basless assumptions about my use of Fi without understanding it especially in the form of context.


Yeah, you can't be typed as a specific type from just one thread if that's what you mean.



> You can´t really see that on the internet :mellow:


Yeah this is just 2D reality  So 2D version of what I said applies LOL



> Idiots that are straightforward (less doubters, less error-checkers) are more big picture? :crazy: That is a two-edged sword I mean if the picture is blurred this leads completely into the wrong direction and causes more harm than it shows real results.


Being straightforward doesn't exclude the use of error checking strategies. I would say it actually helps with that, at least for me. I disagree about the willingness of explaining being a two-edged sword; if the picture (understanding) is wrong, this can be shown if it's being actually communicated and then there is a chance for fixing it  If not communicated, no chance for that at all.




> You can´t pick something apart where is nothing to accomplish it´s like picking the wrong device apart it just sucks time out.


You mean, get a life, that is, get off my ass and do something productive instead of visiting this forum?  Right now for me the only productive thing would be going to bed to sleep but not feeling sleepy so...

Anyway, I think it must be one of those Ti things about picking stuff apart for the accomplishment of putting it together right 




> Counter-arguments againts a different understanding without a middle point hitting -nah good luck with that.


Eh, I always believe that with enough persistence (and with a few other requirements of course) the middle point can be reached; if nothing else then the two parties at least end up understanding each other's viewpoint. Really understanding from what direction the other party comes from. What the other party initially says can be very far from the original basis of their viewpoint and it can be quite the journey to get that far back to it  With some people, I do get positive results out of sticking to talking about some disagreement. And it's all worth it at the end. I don't just mean theoretical arguments, I mean in general any disagreement, practical stuff too.




> Thats even more half-assed as my Fe bundled example but touches the Logical part. Ti is not effective for Te - a person has chosen either the introverted or the extroverted approach if we INTJs would use Ti above a certain limit it has no value and we feel betrayed because the Te approach would have make it easier (Fe manipulation).


Half-assed, well I didn't say it was a very good understanding of the difference from my part  I understand that in theory you don't like to use Ti because you're INTJ with Te preference but that's just tautology... I'm more interested in how this exactly works out, what the difference is exactly. I like to look at cognitive stuff of the brain, this has always been a serious topic of mine, so I'm naturally curious about this "INTJs vs Ti" topic.




> You give too much weight to stressing the individual functions. A Fi-dom is lead by his/her values my drive was that too but I´m not involved about my self-image I try to make an logical Impact without too much stress. Fuck Ti :laughing:
> I wouldn´t judge with so little information.


I didn't judge that much, I explicitly stated I don't know you, I don't know your actual type. Only thing I judged was I said this was a lot of Fi there _"is pleased with this unethical approach without personal values"_. That's classic Fi-Ti problem but I am more interested in the Te-Ti differences tbh. Maybe I didn't make that clear before lol. So I'm waiting for the "logical impact" about Te-Ti axis. 

And... Fuck Fi!  There you go! 




> a nitpicky approach is slow and useless. I lack the Fe to break such things.


If you mean Ti.. Nope, it's not slow internally, especially because most of it is a pretty automatic process. Slow in communication with some people perhaps, I think that's what you see. 

Also when there is a lot of detail, it is true that I feel better with just absorbing the details as is first, it's most comfortable for me if I only try logical analysis later when the easy automatic processing becomes possible. 

But, I have a really quick version of heavy-use Ti if I need to be able to remember *and* handle lots of details with little time allowed for me to process the information. That way of using Ti is very quick and thus very efficient and useful. For me anyway...

So I think you are not very well informed in thinking that the "nitpicky approach" is "slow and useless". That's ok as your experience of it is very likely very different from mine.

I'm not sure what you meant by Fe to break things...?? What things?




> If this is the case (sense) it is already logical placed somewhere.


Err, then why did you say it doesn't need a framework 




> No thats not what I meant. I was fuzzy yeah it tires me out to reason with such folks in forced way.


That was partially a joke 




> Fi also doesn´t mean that one doesn´t jumps to conclusions fast.


I didn't say any such thing. Never even thought of relating that to Fi lol that wouldn't make sense. I just mentioned this as information about this INTJ guy. Btw yeah right it could be E9... He does look like pretty much E9 in behaviour -.- I didn't consider it would apply to his ways of thinking as well.




> You are :laughing: thats a good and a bad thing.


Well thank-you.




> My ability to give clear explanations of my Ni thought process is highly dependent on my energy level and sadly this level is mostly very low (...) I have a hard time to verbalize my thoughts.


Yeah I see, that's ok.. thanks for trying.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> My ability to give clear explanations of my Ni thought process is highly dependent on my energy level and sadly this level is mostly very low because of the flora (fields and fields without enough trees for clear air) and the negative influences. So I disintegrate into introverted states. This involves collecting and flourishing informations and placing this into positions. I have a hard time to verbalize my thoughts.


So I'm not alone, glad to here, I my unhealthy state also adds to my dyslexic typing. Excluding maths I would have failed all forms of writing had been writing as I do here with gram&sp errors


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Maybe not everything but some evidence, facts or at least some more details put on the table is better than not at all justifying or at least elaborating on statements. See my problem? That's often my issue in debates with some people.


I see you bring to much expectations into something this stuff needs a bit time thats all.



> Yeah, you can't be typed as a specific type from just one thread if that's what you mean.


Exactly this is mostly useless without Ni guessing which is also far from perfect.



> Yeah this is just 2D reality  So 2D version of what I said applies LOL















> *Being straightforward doesn't exclude the use of error checking strategies.* I would say it actually helps with that, at least for me. I disagree about the willingness of explaining *being a two-edged sword*; if the picture (understanding) is wrong, this can be shown if it's being actually communicated and then there is a chance for fixing it  If not communicated, no chance for that at all.


Thanks for spliting my Fi from the reasoning process. But there can nothing be shown if the other person is blind and to approaches are making this to heavy and again it needs time.



> You mean, get a life, that is, get off my ass and do something productive instead of visiting this forum?  Right now for me the only productive thing would be going to bed to sleep but not feeling sleepy so...
> 
> Anyway, I think it must be one of those Ti things about picking stuff apart for the accomplishment of putting it together right


Don´t worry your approach wasn´t ineffective (only hard) like the one of a specific other.



> Eh, I always believe that with enough persistence (and with a few other requirements of course) the middle point can be reached; if nothing else then the two parties at least end up understanding each other's viewpoint. Really understanding from what direction the other party comes from. What the other party initially says can be very far from the original basis of their viewpoint and it can be quite the journey to get that far back to it  With some people, I do get positive results out of sticking to talking about some disagreement. And it's all worth it at the end. I don't just mean theoretical arguments, I mean in general any disagreement, practical stuff too.


As an N-dom (my style is not so confrontational) I could see that this shit never mets and that from miles away. So I concentrated on disregarding LeaT and wanted to continue with you.



> Half-assed, well I didn't say it was a very good understanding of the difference from my part  I understand that in theory you don't like to use Ti because you're INTJ with Te preference but that's just tautology... I'm more interested in how this exactly works out, what the difference is exactly. I like to look at cognitive stuff of the brain, this has always been a serious topic of mine, so I'm naturally curious about this "INTJs vs Ti" topic.


There is no INTJ vs. Ti - there is only an overuse at some limits. At least I hope so :shocked:



> I didn't judge that much, I explicitly stated I don't know you, I don't know your actual type. Only thing I judged was I said this was a lot of Fi there _"is pleased with this unethical approach without personal values"_. That's classic Fi-Ti problem but I am more interested in the Te-Ti differences tbh. Maybe I didn't make that clear before lol. So I'm waiting for the "logical impact" about Te-Ti axis.
> 
> And... Fuck Fi!  There you go!


An example were good I mean here is such a expectation of extraverted thinking  I want to understand what your understanding is to see whats gone wrong.



> If you mean Ti.. Nope, it's not slow internally, especially because most of it is a pretty automatic process. Slow in communication with some people perhaps, I think that's what you see.


No damn I don´t mean Ti I mean it for myself not for you.



> Also when there is a lot of detail, it is true that I feel better with just absorbing the details as is first, it's most comfortable for me if I only try logical analysis later when the easy automatic processing becomes possible.


Another milestone  I hate too much details I need relevant stuff and I search for it to synthesize it.



> But, I have a really quick version of heavy-use Ti if I need to be able to remember *and* handle lots of details with little time allowed for me to process the information. That way of using Ti is very quick and thus very efficient and useful. For me anyway...


As you said this are to completly foreign approaches.



> So I think you are not very well informed in thinking that the "nitpicky approach" is "slow and useless". That's ok as your experience of it is very likely very different from mine.


I meant this only for me :sad:



> I'm not sure what you meant by Fe to break things...?? What things?


It´s a bit on both because Ti goes to the source and Fe works with people in logical way. The people who are leaving the holes.



> Err, then why did you say it doesn't need a framework


Because it comes naturally



> That was partially a joke


*scratches head*



> I didn't say any such thing. Never even thought of relating that to Fi lol that wouldn't make sense. I just mentioned this as information about this INTJ guy. Btw yeah right it could be E9... He does look like pretty much E9 in behaviour -.- I didn't consider it would apply to his ways of thinking as well.


Thats cool



Boolean11 said:


> So I'm not alone, glad to here, I my unhealthy state also adds to my dyslexic typing. Excluding maths I would have failed all forms of writing had been writing as I do here with gram&sp errors


I wouldn´t regard it as unfortunately bad because if the circumstances are in place my potential is used and I boost up to where no one can reach me. :mellow:


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> I see you bring to much expectations into something this stuff needs a bit time thats all.


Haha nice advice about slowing down  Btw yeah we seem to be on the same page with some stuff.



> An example were good I mean here is such a expectation of extraverted thinking I want to understand what your understanding is to see whats gone wrong.
> 
> It´s a bit on both because Ti goes to the source and Fe works with people in logical way. The people who are leaving the holes.


I'll ask about that elsewhere, as it's not so much on topic here unless it's also about MBTI vs Socionics comparison, right?  I do wonder if you are using more MBTI or Socionics definitions here...


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

I found the Socionics description of ENTJ (LIE) to be much more descriptive of my thoughts and behaviors than MBTI's version of ENTJ as the slick businessman (Se tertiary?); an ENTJ is a theorist (coordinator rational), according to Kiersey et al. and MBTI somewhat misses that aspect of Te-Ni in the ENTJ's psyche. I actually hadn't expected to find that result (Socionics > MBTI) post-juxtaposition though. This excerpt really resonated with me. 



> They may neglect matters of organization, cleaning, or other tasks related to the maintenance of their physical environment. They often do not pay much attention to their physical well-being, considering the care of their bodies mostly as a nuisance, and may fall into a lifestyle of pushing and overworking themselves.


As part of the LIE Socionics description, specifically the inferior function Si part, I really felt like this highlighted the flip side of the workaholic or information addict Te-Ni combo.

The first three functions in Socionics' encapsulation of LIE were just spot-on in a way that MBTI never convinced me it knew what it was talking about. OK, enough anthropomorphizing typology systems. :tongue:


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> I found the Socionics description of ENTJ (LIE) to be much more descriptive of my thoughts and behaviors than MBTI's version of ENTJ as the slick businessman (Se tertiary?); an ENTJ is a theorist (coordinator rational), according to Kiersey et al. and MBTI somewhat misses that aspect of Te-Ni in the ENTJ's psyche. I actually hadn't expected to find that result (Socionics > MBTI) post-juxtaposition though. This excerpt really resonated with me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Myers was really off with Te, she couldn't really understand it due to her inability to understand Ni or Si, the true drivers of Te. As an INTJ I resonate more so with the intellectual persona of the INTP profile. Plus the INTP profile has a strong enneagram 5 (5w6) bias, whilst the INTJ profile has a 4 (4w3) instead. I see the INTJ super scientist high IQ profile as a 4 due to the type of introversion that is seen questing a sense of individuality. And the wing 3, based on the Te interpretation that seeks results would be a wing type instead since the 3 is suppressed; unlike the ENTJ with a 3w4. INTPs are seen as 5w6 due to them being them being seen as intellectuals more concerned with theory than actually doing stuff.


----------

