# Contrasting mbti functions and socionics IM elements.



## Promethea

*I didn't write this myself. I will include a link to the source.

Overview

The most seemingly obvious distinction between the systems is that JCF is more of an input/processing system, with little regard as to what behavioral output it produces, whereas Socionics is more of an input/output system. The focus is principally on interpersonal relationships, so Socionics accounts for behavioral output, and the psychological impact such has on others. However, that's just a foundational difference -- when you delve deeper into the type system you'll find some differences so large as to make the two type systems nigh-irreconcilable. I'll start with these most obvious differences.
criticism
I don't really agree with this. actually socionics and JCF -- from what i understand of JCF -- are both operationalized fundamentally as cognitive lenses. i would specifically disagree that JCF and socionics are different inasmuch as socionics directly focuses on behavioral outputs and JCF does not; in fact, literature on both systems seems to dictate that the cognitive lenses that they described have a variety of effects on behavior.
the specific point about intertype relations is misapplied. indeed, intertype relations can be thought of just as easily as a cognitive lens as a behavioral output, as a personological effect of the receptivity itself to that information. while jungian theories do not account for intertype relations (at least in a widely distributed or systematically agreed-upon way), that speaks not at all to whether or not they describe behavioral outputs, which they do, and which you could find evidence of in plenty of descriptions of cognitive functions.
Feeling/ethics functions

Right off the bat anyone with a basic grasp on reading comprehension (that is to say most of you, I hope...) could tell looking at Fe and Fi as they compare between systems, that they are not alike. Just for starters, Fi and Fe as pertain to JCF deal with ethical/moral values, whereas Fi and Fe as they pertain to JCF deal more in the realm of acual feelings -- or rather, moods and interpersonal distance to others.
Fe
JCF
Externalized sense of value. Belief of values and worth is dependent on the external surroundings. When our surrounding tells us that it is important to be respectful of friends and family, that is what we utilize as Fe value. When we accept values of the church, it becomes our Fe value. It tells us to adopt social roles based on our external surroundings.
Socionics
Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity. Types that value like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations.
comments
The only commonality between the two functions is their external focus -- Socionics is not necessarily other-focused in terms of actual values, and oftentimes this type of person has egocentric tendencies. In fact behaviorally speaking the patterns of behavior associated to best fit EP-temperament for JCF, regardless of whether the auxiliary function is Fi or Ti. JCF FJs are rarely this thick-skinned or blasé.
Fi
JCF
Internalized sense of value. Personal belief of what is right and wrong, what is important, and what is significant, regardless of the external beliefs. Fi does not concern itself of the outer world. It doesn’t care if the environment it grew up in set forth certain values or traditions.
socionics
Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.
comments
This on the other hand I see frequently among FJs, which I frankly find quite irritating (that is, the sensitivity aspect). It's common as well among Fi types, but somewhat less so.
criticism
i agree that Fe and Fi are described somewhat differently and in many cases in accordance with values rather than emotional information -- but your analysis is incomplete in that it seems to downplay the common factors between the way Fe and Fi are described, and focuses on only one (potentially quite important) aspect of the way that feeling functions are conventionally described.
Sensing/sensation functions

Going down the line, the next shockingly dissimilar function set is Si and Se; especially the former. In this case, Socionics definitions are less about raw intake of sensory data, and more about prioritization of it based on expectations -- Se types will focus more on external environmental expectations and push to achieve them, whereas Si will indulge more on the demands and needs of their own body
criticisms
yes, exactly.
Se
socionics
includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required. Types that value Se are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value Se. There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing ()-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world".
JCF
Extraverted Sensing occurs when we become aware of what is in the physical world in rich detail. We may be drawn to act on what we experience to get an immediate result. We notice relevant facts and occurrences in a sea of data and experiences, learning all the facts we can about the immediate context or area of focus and what goes on in that context. An active seeking of more and more input to get the whole picture may occur until all sources of input have been exhausted or something else captures our attention. Extraverted Sensing is operating when we freely follow exciting physical impulses or instincts as they come up and enjoy the thrill of action in the present moment. A oneness with the physical world and a total absorption may exist as we move, touch, and sense what is around us. The process involves instantly reading cues to see how far we can go in a situation and still get the impact we want or respond to the situation with presence.
comments
They look a lot alike, but some things stand out:
Abrasive, volitional, impact-focused behavior in Socionics is concentrated into the definition of Se (due to its Decisive nature, as opposed to Ne/Si's Judiciousness. As such, highly aggressive and impatient N types often fall under this category.
i would say this is true, but is a sort of common side effect rather than "abrasive" or "volitional" behavior following directly from processing of Se -- which by itself i see as almost exactly what you described above -- a focus, awareness, and prioritization of external demands.
A point is made that Se types dislike theorizing when they don't see the usefulness of it, which means that an Se type could in fact be inclined to developing strategies and abstract theories and hunches, if they're useful -- they'd just discard the ones they think are bullshit at the time. This'd fit particularly well with JCF Ne-leading with strong tertiary Te.
again, this is often true but a bit of a simplification -- rather than disliking theorizing, it would be more accurate in my opinion to think of Se (dominant) types as lacking in awareness of ideas or concepts that are not immediately relevant to the external demands of their environment -- rather than having a skepticism filter as you seem to be describing; actually i don't think they don't characteristically anything resembling a skeptical attitude at all, only that they in many cases will seem too impatient to pay attention to what you term as "theorizing"
is a Static element, and as such its conception of reality does not change moment to moment, but only when the environment changes significantly. JCF-wise his would fit best with Si memory-mapping, which means the best-fit types for Beta ST are STJs. However, it would also fit well with the tendency of Ne-dominance to collect information from its surroundings in large swathes to intuitively figure it out.
obviously, as anyone aware of my ideas of aspectonics would know, i disagree with this.
Si
Now let us examine the remarkably elusive Si
socionics
Si is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail. focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure. In contrast to extroverted sensing (Se), Si is related to following one's own needs instead of focusing on some externally-driven conception of what is necessary to acquire or achieve. So, whereas ego types feel capable to evaluate how justified others' preferences are, ego types will try to adjust to them in any way possible (given that it does not extremely affect their own comfort), wishing to minimize conflict. In contrast to introverted intuition (Ni), Si is about direct interaction and unity (or discord) with one's surroundings, rather than abstract process and causal links.
JCF
Si, or introverted Sensing, is dominant for ISxJ, secondary for ESxJ, tertiary for INxP and inferior for ENxP. It's related to Se in that it deals with sensory experience, but rather than constantly scan for everything about what's going on now, it relies on internalizing those experiences into an extremely detailed internal map of highly vivid *memories* of those past sensory experiences. This dependence on reliving past experience and using it as a guide for the present leads to an extremely good memory for detail, and a general attitude that going with what we know for sure from having experienced it before is usually best.
comments
Now, these could not be more different. Essentially, Socionics Si is little more than a collection of all the personally focused elements (physical hedonism, aesthetics, et al.) of Se. No memory mapping to be found here. This element in combination with the above-mentioned Fe, creates the outgoing party-animal behavior, cheerfulness and sensory indulgence typically associated with SPs, and especially SFPs.
criticisms
i agree with virtually everything here; the treatment of Si in socionics and MBTI is extremely different.
Intuition

Intuitive functions are a bit more alike between systems, but there's still some wiggle room with regards to them.
Ne
socionics
Ne is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others. Types that value Ne prefer to try out an opportunity rather than consider all possible ways in which it could not work out. They pick a few options and stick with them, in contrast to introverted intuition (Ni) types who pick one option and continue to doubt that option.
JCF
Ne, or extroverted iNtuition, is dominant for ENxP, secondary for INxP, tertiary for ESxJ and inferior for ISxJ. It is an outwardly exploratory attitude that encourages us to change, reinvent and experiment with the external world in order to find new and interesting combinations and patterns. Ne looks for novel outcomes and imagines how the things around you could be changed into other, more interesting things. Ne sees new information as part of a larger, emerging, as of yet unseen pattern that extends far beyond the self, and whose meaning will continue to change as the context grows and we discover more of the all-encompassing pattern. Rather than directly confront an issue, Ne will often broaden the context until the issue seems insignificant by comparison to the much bigger and more expansive ideas it imagines.
comments
Similar, very similar indeed, but by no means the same. Once again, Jung Ne falls just a tad short of completely connecting with Ne, simply because Jung defines motivation as opposed to behavior, and as such it cannot completely account for end behavior. Ne's exploratory attitude can manifest in checking a billion different ideas and contingency plans like Ne does, or it can manifest in sequential thinking, creating an image after another of how things could go, discarding them as new external information comes in, as Ni does. A very good example of the latter would be Greg House (ENFP IEI): His main modus operandi is brainstorming ideas, then discarding them sequentially until one fits.
criticisms
the comparison with gregory house is silly and that character is hardly archetypally IEI, but i agree with almost all of this otherwise
Ni
JCF
Ni, or introverted iNtuition, is dominant for INxJ, secondary for ENxJ, tertiary for ISxP and inferior for ESxP. It is an inward sense of abstract perceptual shift. Rather than imagine different ways we could change the outside world, Ni acknowledges many different ways we could change the subjective meaning of things to ourselves by looking at them from different angles. Rather than directly confront an issue, Ni will often solve problems by simply looking at them from a different angle. Doing a bunch of community service sucks? Just think of it as an opportunity to get lots of exercise!
Note that Ni doesn't think about how to change the outer world the way Ne does; it only thinks about how to change *the way we interpret* the outer world. Ni leads you to try and see "through the smoke and mirrors" to what is REALLY going on below the surface, that other people are not perceptive enough to pick up on...so in its unhealthy form, it turns into conspiracy theories, a la Dale Gribble from King of the Hill.
i don't advocate these typings
socionics
Ni is associated with memory, uncertainty, state of mind, understanding trends or ongoing processes, incommunicability of subjective mental images, and a state of inertia. If Ne types are likely to branch out and explore all possible concepts to find something interesting, Ni types are likely to replay the conceptual associations that they have already made in their head. They may mentally replay things that have happened from their past or especially focus on the importance of concepts in memory, especially those relating to their personal history. Ni dominants, perhaps more than any other types, are those that are inclined to appear out of touch with the real world and commonly lost in thought. They are also very often lazy and externally unmotivated, and may not interact or accomplish very much without outside influence. Ni dominants in analytical ways often have a tendency to convey doubt, communicate about the unknowability of the topic or to constantly generalize their ideas.
comments
Similar, but somewhat ambiguous. As mentioned before, the main difference between Socionics Ni and Ne is that while Ne will not discard an idea even if it's already working on one (Static intuition), Ni considers ideas and then discards them on basis of likelihood using external information, sticking to the possibility that seems best at the time (Dynamic intuition). This in particular doesn't fit the distinct certainty that JCF Ni carries, and does fit the exploratory nature of Ne, which will consult their surroundings and modify their ideas accordingly.
criticism
i dislike the aspectonics explanation, but ok
Thinking/logic

Thinking functions are pretty much identical between MBTI and Socionics, but as these are essentially elaborations on JCF, they diverge just a bit from it. Again, the disconnect is in JCF's lack of defined external behavior.
criticism
i disagree with this a great deal. i think aleksei did not do a good job interpreting the subtle differences between JCF and socionics functions here
Ti
socionics
Ti is most commonly associated with themes of logical consistency, structure, principles, rules, modeling, mathematical certainty, appropriateness or correctness of action, and regimentation. Naturally, Ti creatives often have nothing resembling a regimented lifestyle, but Ti dominants often project a sense of organization and structure in their everyday activities (for example, keeping to a strict schedule over a long period of time). Ti is mostly an interpretive, analytical, and normative element, with a focus on organizing rather than doing -- especially in dominants who exhibit this aspect as an element of their lifestyle. Ti types tend to be inclined to perceive their world according to the structures and rules that they designate, seeking to organize their reality into a functional system (much like Einstein's search for a unified theory of relativistic physics).
JCF
Internalized sense of Concept and framework. Dependent of one’s own personal belief regardless of the external rules or concepts. Ti may choose to accept certain rules and deny others from the external realm. It may also form its own concept to utilize as benchmark against data it processes. This framework or benchmark, however, is unique to the Ti user and is unable to be utilized by any other individual.
comments
As you can clearly see, Ti in JCF is about the source of one's rules and methodology; in Socionics is more about the nature of such: Crisp, logical rules and internal structure and categorization.
criticisms
a similar misplaced emphasis exists as in the section on Te -- yes, Ti in socionics deals with categories, classifications, and logical building blocks as Ti in a jungian sense -- but not for quite the same reasons, not quite the same intellectual drives, and not obviously with the common jungian description of a subjective referent or "personal" lens with which to evaluate the information they're presented with.
Te
socionics
Te is most associated with themes of external applicability, pragmatism, factual content and accuracy, proactive action, productive work and processes (how-to instructions), availability of products and services, and clear, unhindered dissemination of information.
JCF
Externalized sense of framework. Dependent of the world universal belief. If the external world utilizes Metric System as a standard, the Te accepts this as its framework. If the external world utilizes certain protocols, the Te will also accept this. It goes by and accepts the rules laid forth by the external world.
comments
The focus is highly similar, but there's no particular reason why JCF Te types would be more concerned with practicality over categorization and rules structure -- they'd just depend on external input for such. The latter is a rather common focus for ISTJs, which is why ISTJ corresponds well with LSI (although as having Decisive tendencies, INTJ corresponds somewhat well with LSI as well).
criticisms
i disagree a lot with this section. the JCF description has little to do with the emphasis on factual accuracy and clarity of communication that socionics Te places -- which is really what socionics Te is, as opposed to the unyielding emphasis on objective standards in the JCF description. it's often true that socionics Te types, particularly Te dominants, tend to look for external information and don't obviously challenge external information or protocols, but this is a sort of side effect in my view; the "real" emphasis of socionics Te is in clear exchange of information. the description also captures something fundamental in that Te in socionics has a need for pragmatism and to actively "fix" the external world -- but this is clearly not the focus of the JCF description and in general the JCF description does a very bad job capturing the essence of what socionics Te describes.
Conclusion

In short, based on that almost any Socionics type could correspond to almost any JCF type and vice-versa. It'd just depend on the behavioral output resulting from the core motivating factors defined by JCF. It's further easier to type in Socionics precisely because Socionics has a discernible behavioral profile, and has more practical use given that Socionics was designed around an interpersonal relationship structure


User:Aestrivex/essays/Contrasting JCF and socionics - WSWiki


----------



## Boolean11

Now all that is left is a succinct presentation of the differences


----------



## itsme45

Promethea said:


> yes, Ti in socionics deals with categories, classifications, and logical building blocks as Ti in a jungian sense -- but not for quite the same reasons, not quite the same intellectual drives, and not obviously with the common jungian description of a subjective referent or "personal" lens with which to evaluate the information they're presented with.


Hey, pretty cool stuff including the comments. I only quoted one thing to ask about (the rest was clear and made sense & I agree with it). What are the reasons/motivations for socionics Ti valuers to use Ti? Why is the socionics Ti in your opinion not subjective? Hm, ok, on second thought I can see it. Basically socionics Ti is about clear rules (systems and optionally in behaviour too) and those do not have to appear subjective because they are often universal rules. Universal in the sense that all human brains can generate them... Yet I feel like there is some subjectivity to it. Somehow it feels linked to our perception of our own boundaries.


----------



## cyamitide

These are descriptions of Information Elements by Aushra Augusta for comparison and contrast with MBTI (sample MBTI descriptions: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...iled-descriptions-each-function-attitude.html)


*Eight facets of reality

*_In the psyche [these facets] clearly differentiate from one another and even differ in their degree of awareness. The individual uses them differently. In addition, one particular perceptual element of bodies in extraverts and one perceptual element of fields in introverts is leading.
_
​Four perceptual elements of bodies (with their symbols):










— Se: Perception of the appearance and shape of an object








— Ne: Perception of the inner content and structure of an object








— Te: Perception of the external dynamics of an object — its movements in space








— Fe: Perception of the internal dynamics of an object — the changes taking place within it
Four perceptual elements of relations (with their symbols):










— Si: Perception of the internal situation of an object








— Ni: Perception of time








— Ti: Perception of an object's position in space








— Fi: Perception of an object's attraction and repulsion
_
These are the four components of relations of objects with other objects. Or — four different ways of correlating them. How an object fits into the context of other objects is defined by these four relations.
_
_To summarize, we can say that







(time) and







(internal state) are two forms of interaction between processes (an object in a process) and that







(attraction of an object) and







(awareness of the positions of objects in space) are two forms of interaction between objects (an object at rest). The first two we will call irrational elements after Jung, and the second two rational.
_
​The leading perceptual function defines one's type of intellect, because it implies the ability to reconstruct through this particular aspect everything once learned or experienced. Here are more detailed descriptions of the perceptual elements and the characteristics of people with them as their leading functions. For convenience Augusta calls these elements "black" or "white," or characteristics of bodies (objects) or fields, respectively.










*Black (extraverted) intuition Ne

*Perceives information about objects' potential energy — for example, information about the physical and mental abilities and potential of a person. This perception implies the ability to understand the structure of objects and phenomena and grasp their inner substance. This element determines a person's ability or inability to see the real potential energy of one's surroundings.
When this element is in the leading position, the individual has pronounced cognitive interests. He is constantly studying underlying phenomena, which he is able to communicate to others quite successfully by making complicated things simple [*!!* _not all are able to explain things well_]. Likes to explain to others his understanding of things. In favorable conditions becomes a scientist or writer [*!!* _not necessarily true_]. Is able to find optimal ways of increasing objects' potential energy. "Energizes" others with his understanding of the potential energy of surrounding objects.









*Black (extraverted) ethics Fe

*Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods. This perceptual element implies the ability to know what excites people, and what suppresses them. It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people.
When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the innate ability to induce or convey his moods to others and energize people with his emotions. He is able to activate the psychological/spiritual lives of other people and their emotional readiness for action. You might say that such a person has the ability to infect others with his moods and tends to impose on others the emotional states that he considers beneficial for their life activities.

What people usually call emotions or a person's display of emotions is neither more nor less than a form of letting out this internal excitation directly, almost without expending it in muscle activity. A cheerful person who laughs releases an emotional charge and inner excitation through certain movements of the muscles of the face and body. This might be a means for reducing overexcitement, when inner exertion cannot be used for the activity it was intended for. But it can also be a conscious method of conveying one's excitement/agitation to others — inducing one's internal excitement/agitation in the psyches of other people. Anger, for example, is also a way of reducing overexcitement, but it is usually directed not at arousing others emotionally, but at emotionally suppressing and depleting them, at lowering their activity level, or at strictly channeling their activity.









*Black (extraverted) sensing Se

*Perceives information about what might be called objects' "kinetic energy" — for example, information about how organized/mobilized a person is, his physical energy and power, and his ability to make use of his willpower or position and exercise his will in opposition to others'. This perception implies the ability to tell what reserves of "kinetic energy" people have and how useful they can be in getting things done. It defines the individual's ability or inability to exercise his willpower and energy in opposition to the will and energy of other people.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses exceptional personal force/will. He is a born organizer of anything. He has the ability to mobilize people to achieve a goal and is able to make use of and manage animate and inanimate objects. Is able to work with things (objects) and reproduce almost any objects based on available samples. This is a reflection of his ability to organize material. These people are known for their striving to materialize their will, energy, and power, and for their desire to impose their will on others.









*Black (extraverted) logic Te

*Perceives information about animate and inanimate objects' physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities. This perception provides the ability to make sense of what is going on. It defines the awareness of and ability or inability to think up ways of doing things, distinguish rational actions from irrational ones, and the ability or inability to direct others' work.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to plan his and others' work, understand the logicalness and illogicalness of processes, and correct the work activities of other people in accordance with this understanding. And the ability to apply personally and convey to others the most rational ways of doing things. [*!!* _emphasis on 'work' here may be inadequate, especially when you consider people of these types who are scientists, artists, and musicions_]









*White (introverted) intuition Ni

*All processes take place in time; they have their roots in the past and their continuation in the future. _Time __is the correlation between events that follow each other_. This perceptual element provides information about the sequence of events and people's deeds, about their cause and effect relationship, and about participants' attitudes towards this — that is, about people's feelings that these relationships engender.

Such an individual perceives information from without as feelings about the future, past, and present. For example, a sense of hurriedness, calmness, or heatedness, a sense of timeliness or prematureness, a sense of proper or improper life rhythm, a sense of impending danger or safety, anticipation, fear of being late, a sense of seeing the future, anxiety about what lies ahead, and so forth. At any given moment of one's life one has such a sense of time. One cannot live outside of time or be indifferent toward it. Thus, a certain sense of time is an integral part of the individual's psychological state at any given moment. This perceptual element defines a person's ability or inability to forecast and plan for the future, evade all sorts of troubles, avoid taking wrong actions, and learn from past experience.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses innate strategic abilities and is able to choose the most optimal moments for different activities: when to give battle, if necessary, and when to avoid battle, when that would be more appropriate. Interaction in time might be interpreted as the ability to avoid collisions with objects and hence avoid objects' reflection within oneself.









*White (introverted) sensing Si

*An object's internal state we view as the relationship between events that cause each other [*!!* _unclear description_]. This element perceives information about how processes are reflected in one's internal state — people's sense of health and sensations that are caused by processes taking place. Interaction in space is essentially the response of one object to another. Objects respond to other objects, creating certain sensations in each other. Such an individual perceives information from without as sensations related to what is happening. For example, the sensation of pain is essentially the reflection in a person's brain of a relationship between his functioning body and a process occurring in some part of the body that impedes this functioning.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to change the qualities of the surrounding space and the sensations of people who are located within it. He is able to avoid physical discomfort and protect others from discomfort. This element determines the ability to recreate previously experienced aesthetic sensations — to recreate an object that provides one with aesthetic sensations that the author chooses. These people are able to distinguish previously experienced aesthetic sensations from new ones and are able to "collect" and remember them. This also implies the ability to set one's aesthetic and sensory needs in opposition to others' and demand their gratification, the ability to mould and perfect not only one's own aesthetic tastes and habits, but also those of other people. We might say that such individuals have the ability to impose their understanding of aesthetics and comfortable living on other people. [*!!* _emphasis on 'aesthetics' here is inadequate_]

_







_ *White (introverted) logic Ti

*We shall call 'logical' those feelings that arise in the process of comparing one object to another on the basis of any objective parameter — for example, a feeling of distance, weight, volume, worth, strength, quality, etc. These are feelings of objective evaluation that in certain situations help activate or passivate the person experiencing them. Such an individual perceives information from without as a sense of objects' proper or improper correlation/proportion, a sense of balance or imbalance between them, or an awareness or unawareness of the advantages of one object over another. This also includes all feelings that results from knowing or not knowing objects and phenomena — curiosity, respect, fear, and a sense of the logicalness or illogicalness of things, as well as a sense of one's own power or powerlessness before different objects.

All these feelings we shall call logical. Their sum is a person's sense of logic. People have differently developed senses of logic. We might say that logical feelings convey information about the knowledge or lack of knowledge of objects, their comparability or incomparability, and the balance or lack of balance between them, as well as about space and objects' position in space. They are _objective _because they do not take into consideration the interests and needs of people, but only correlations of objective qualities. This perceptual element determines a person's ability or inability to see the objective, logical relations between objects or their components.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to logically evaluate interrelations of objective static reality, or the world of objects. He also the ability to change according to his desires the interrelations between the characteristics of various objects and hence influence the objects themselves that carry these characteristics. Correct evaluation of one's interrelations with other objects helps the individual know which objects should be avoided, and which can be "hunted." Such an individual is able to set his logic — or his knowledge of objectifiable reality, patterns, laws, and correlations of the objective world — in opposition to others' knowledge. He has the ability to mould and perfect not only his own knowledge of objectifiable reality, but also that of other people. This creates a feeling of power when clashing with other people's logic or lack thereof.









*White (introverted) ethics Fi

*This is the subjective relationship between two carriers of potential or kinetic energy that shows the level of attraction (or repulsion) between one object or subject and another object or subject. Thanks to this IM element a person feels which objects attract him and which repel him. You might say that this perceptual element conveys information about objects' need or lack of need of each other and about the presence or absence of mutual or one-way needs.

Such an individual perceives information about this facet of objective reality the individual perceives as a need for certain objects that satisfy physical wishes/desires, psychological or spiritual desires, and a need for other people — in other words, a person's wishes/desires and interests that are directed toward animate and inanimate objects. This includes feelings of like and dislike, love and hatred, the desire to obtain some thing/object, etc., and greed or the absense of greed. The higher feelings of this kind can be called _ethical_, because relationships between people's needs are mainly regulated by ethical normals.

When this perceptual element is in the leading position, the individual possesses the innate ability to perceive and evaluate wishes/desires — both his own and others'. He always knows who wants what from whom. He is able to set his awareness of subjective reality and his wishes in opposition to those of others. He has the ability to mould and perfect both his own and others' wishes. He possesses both the ability to provide himself with necessary relationships with others and confidence in his capacity to influence other people. His correct perception of human needs allows him to avoid risky collisions when satisfying his own needs. This engenders the ability to manipulate people's attachments, and the ability and desire to influence people's ethical feelings and bring these feelings closer to societal ideals.

Information Elements in Valued Functions


----------



## itsme45

Promethea said:


> A point is made that Se types dislike theorizing when they don't see the usefulness of it, which means that an Se type could in fact be inclined to developing strategies and abstract theories and hunches, if they're useful -- they'd just discard the ones they think are bullshit at the time.
> 
> again, this is often true but a bit of a simplification -- rather than disliking theorizing, it would be more accurate in my opinion to think of Se (dominant) types as lacking in awareness of ideas or concepts that are not immediately relevant to the external demands of their environment -- rather than having a skepticism filter as you seem to be describing; actually i don't think they don't characteristically anything resembling a skeptical attitude at all, only that they in many cases will seem too impatient to pay attention to what you term as "theorizing"
> 
> is a Static element, and as such its conception of reality does not change moment to moment, but only when the environment changes significantly. JCF-wise his would fit best with Si memory-mapping, which means the best-fit types for Beta ST are STJs. However, it would also fit well with the tendency of Ne-dominance to collect information from its surroundings in large swathes to intuitively figure it out.


Hm, I skipped that previously... Personally, the first three lines are very much me, including discarding stuff that I think is BS _at the time_.

As for lacking in awareness of Intuitive "ideas"... that may also be true but to be completely honest I don't even need them most of the time. Sometimes I could make use of them, and then if I'm lacking in an intuitive viewpoint of a situation I do _half-consciously _feel like I'm at a bit of a "disadvantage" there, but yeah, I will still sort out the situation in whatever way anyway. I will sometimes consciously "turn on" some awareness for some Intuition, this is of course done to a limited extent but it does help and my default way of doing things is also usually sufficient. 

And I *do* have a strong skepticism filter. I'm very much the skeptic about ideas that don't relate to reality in a way *I* prefer them to.  Think of scientific version of skepticism as well. As for things I actually experience in reality I'm not really skeptic about, true.  

It is not simply about impatience for me either. I dunno if some other Se types are really simply impatient with theory, that's not the case with me if I see how I can use it or whatever other relevance related to reality it has. If I'm desperate enough (this is rare) I don't even need to see a direct way it can apply, I just try whatever I can to solve a problem. The thing is, if I'm not convinced about relevance (which can mean I'm just ignoring the idea that it has relevance) I will definitely brush it off impatiently. I still wouldn't call it impatience, just... a different perspective. If I don't need the thing you think you need, it doesn't mean I'm just silly or impatient.

Last comment about the quote: I've been seen both as STJ (ISTJ) and Ne-dom though I'm neither... superficial similarities.




cyamitide said:


> Black (extraverted) sensing Se
> Perceives information about what might be called objects' "kinetic energy" — for example, information about how organized/mobilized a person is, his physical energy and power, and his ability to make use of his willpower or position and exercise his will in opposition to others'. This perception implies the ability to tell what reserves of "kinetic energy" people have and how useful they can be in getting things done. It defines the individual's ability or inability to exercise his willpower and energy in opposition to the will and energy of other people.
> When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses exceptional personal force/will. He is a born organizer of anything. He has the ability to mobilize people to achieve a goal and is able to make use of and manage animate and inanimate objects. Is able to work with things (objects) and reproduce almost any objects based on available samples. This is a reflection of his ability to organize material. These people are known for their striving to materialize their will, energy, and power, and for their desire to impose their will on others.


Okay so can you, being big on linking MBTI and Socionics, tell me, how is this the same process as Jungian Se? 

This is just... so different. Example, power, energy, willpower and the desire to impose will on others is not mentioned by Jung *whatsoever* and this text talks about it a lot. Eh, I guess an active Se approach could be seen as imposing to someone who's not into a materialistic achiever attitude to the world? But then that means this is an overly subjective viewpoint of Se and is missing the point of what the cognitive process itself is. Also... I think someone who's Se in the Jungian sense, doesn't have to be like this specific description of Socionics Se because the Jungian Se definition allows for more than just this narrowed down interpretation of Se. I personally relate to this Socionics Se description but that's no proof for saying it always has to be this way for every Se user... also, I don't think I'm always just about these things, Se does seem to have more to it than this. Or was this Socionics Se definition intended just as an extreme contrast to Si or something?


----------



## Functianalyst

Promethea said:


> Right off the bat anyone with a basic grasp on reading comprehension (that is to say most of you, I hope...) could tell looking at Fe and Fi as they compare between systems, that they are not alike. Just for starters, Fi and Fe as pertain to JCF deal with ethical/moral values, whereas Fi and Fe as they pertain to JCF deal more in the realm of acual feelings -- or rather, moods and interpersonal distance to others.


Can I just state that the title insinuates a comparative analysis of MBTI vs Socionics, but the content of the original thread refers to Psychological Type theory, at least the use of psychological type tools, namely specific use of function-attitudes. MBTI is not Jungian. MBTI focuses on dichotomies (ENTP) and at best refer to general functions (NTFS). I have yet to have someone show me where the AUTHENTIC MBTI theory uses the full function-attitude (Ne instead of N). The only time the theory does refer to specific function-attitudes is when describing the most differentiated function with the second auxiliary function to create MBTI types (Ne+T=ENTP/Ne+F=ENFP). Without truly understanding TODAY how Socionics proposes the theory works, I would say a better comparison to MBTI would be Thinking/Logic, Sensing/Sensory, and from a very basic and generalized method. 

If this thread is an attempt to compare Dr. Jung with Socionics, it can only be done if both systems use the function-attitudes similarly. Psychological Types FOCUSES on attitude in addition to function, not the reverse:


> In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, *and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But, in addition, I shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life.* The former I would term general attitude types, since they are distinguished by the direction of general interest or libido movement, while the latter I would call function-types. The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object.


Thus a comparison of what people refer to as JCF still remains based on Dr. Jung’s principles (at least I think they are attempting to refer to Psychological Types), but as usual are wanting to maintain function-1st, attitude maybe. It still remains the attitude and orientation that makes the cognitive function, not the reverse. Just my thoughts, but the comparison is an apple/orange.


----------



## TheRevaN

Speaking from a purely MBTI vs Socionics perspective I tend to think Socionics is much better both at a theoretical level(the way they describe functions in each position and why the functions act the way they act based on a surprisingly good and complex model) and also on a practical level (I find their type descriptions to be much more realistic). MBTI is to it's own fault too simplistic and their descriptions are (in my opinion) affected by what some Socionics adepts call "political correctness" (they focus too much on the qualities and exagerate them, while downplaying the defects).


----------



## itsme45

TheRevaN said:


> Speaking from a purely MBTI vs Socionics perspective I tend to think Socionics is much better both at a theoretical level(the way they describe functions in each position and why the functions act the way they act based on a surprisingly good and complex model) and also on a practical level (I find their type descriptions to be much more realistic). MBTI is to it's own fault too simplistic and their descriptions are (in my opinion) affected by what some Socionics adepts call "political correctness" (they focus too much on the qualities and exagerate them, while downplaying the defects).


Surprisingly complex perhaps. Surprisingly good? Not so much. Its use relies heavily on confirmation bias. I'm not saying MBTI doesn't involve that but not as much as this as MBTI is simpler. As for the type descriptions, I find they are not better than MBTI, just different. There are a few people who will not fit any description in MBTI and another few people who will not fit Socionics type descriptions. As for PC stuff, I've seen a few MBTI sites that focus on the negative side too.


----------



## cyamitide

itsme45 said:


> Okay so can you, being big on linking MBTI and Socionics, tell me, how is this the same process as Jungian Se?


I link MBTI with Socionics because the sensing aspects are the only ones whose definitions considerably depart from MBTI, while definitions of the three other aspects, Thinking, Feeling, and Intuition, are remarkably similar between the two typologies. 3 out of 4 is enough for me to not see these typologies as significantly different from each other.



itsme45 said:


> This is just... so different. Example, power, energy, willpower and the desire to impose will on others is not mentioned by Jung *whatsoever* and this text talks about it a lot.


I agree, Augusta departed considerably from Jung in her portrayal of sensing functions that it sounds like she almost invented her own version of Si/Se. Those who study socionics for a while often reject this association between Se and willpower because in reality it doesn't work out to be so, so informally at least it's not considered to be true.



itsme45 said:


> Eh, I guess an active Se approach could be seen as imposing to someone who's not into a materialistic achiever attitude to the world? But then that means this is an overly subjective viewpoint of Se and is missing the point of what the cognitive process itself is.


such is the fate of most of functional and profile descriptions, to be skewed by observer bias



itsme45 said:


> Also... I think someone who's Se in the Jungian sense, doesn't have to be like this specific description of Socionics Se because the Jungian Se definition allows for more than just this narrowed down interpretation of Se.


Well there is a limited number of configurations of functions. Considering that descriptions of the other 3 elements of Thinking, Feeling, and Intuition are similar between MBTI and socionics, it is likely that you will end up being the same type, function-wise, in socionics as you were in MBTI, even if Se/Si don't match.



itsme45 said:


> I personally relate to this Socionics Se description but that's no proof for saying it always has to be this way for every Se user... also, I don't think I'm always just about these things, Se does seem to have more to it than this. Or was this Socionics Se definition intended just as an extreme contrast to Si or something?


It is rumored that since Augusta was ILE/ENTp herself that she attributed pushiness and willfulness to Se because it was her Role function, which is strongly devalued, so it may have seemed as pushy and willful to her.



TheRevaN said:


> MBTI is to it's own fault too simplistic and their descriptions are (in my opinion) affected by what some Socionics adepts call "political correctness" (they focus too much on the qualities and exagerate them, while downplaying the defects).


A lot of work on socionics has been done as academic research, so there wasn't as much need for PC as there is with MBTI. This is not to say that socionics doesn't have it's own share of stupid stereotypes, like the connection between willpower and Se that I've seen discussing with itsme above.

In my opinion, the main problem with both MBTI and Socionics is that they focus too much on outwardly displayed behaviors and attitudes, and don't go much into internal perceptions and experiences of types.


----------



## itsme45

cyamitide said:


> I link MBTI with Socionics because the sensing aspects are the only ones whose definitions considerably depart from MBTI, while definitions of the three other aspects, Thinking, Feeling, and Intuition, are remarkably similar between the two typologies. 3 out of 4 is enough for me to not see these typologies as significantly different from each other.


What do you think about the difference in I/E between MBTI and Socionics? Seems like another difference to me.




> I agree, Augusta departed considerably from Jung in her portrayal of sensing functions that it sounds like she almost invented her own version of Si/Se. Those who study socionics for a while often reject this association between Se and willpower because in reality it doesn't work out to be so, so informally at least it's not considered to be true.


Informally... oh. Why only informally? 




> such is the fate of most of functional and profile descriptions, to be skewed by observer bias


How can then you ensure the theory itself is not skewed by it?! This is a serious question here.




> Well there is a limited number of configurations of functions. Considering that descriptions of the other 3 elements of Thinking, Feeling, and Intuition are similar between MBTI and socionics, it is likely that you will end up being the same type, function-wise, in socionics as you were in MBTI, even if Se/Si don't match.


That's a good way of reasoning only if similar means identical...




> It is rumored that since Augusta was ILE/ENTp herself that she attributed pushiness and willfulness to Se because it was her Role function, which is strongly devalued, so it may have seemed as pushy and willful to her.


I've heard that duality idea is also flawed because it was coming from her... why isn't the whole theory accepted as flawed because it was coming from her? lol. Seriously though, see above about that observation bias.




> In my opinion, the main problem with both MBTI and Socionics is that they focus too much on outwardly displayed behaviors and attitudes, and don't go much into internal perceptions and experiences of types.


I agree  Socionics being quite worse with that...


----------



## cyamitide

itsme45 said:


> What do you think about the difference in I/E between MBTI and Socionics? Seems like another difference to me.


What differences do you see?
To my knowledge, Socionics uses Jung's Introversion/Extraversion dichotomy.



itsme45 said:


> Informally... oh. Why only informally?


Because Aushra is deceased and no one can un-write what she wrote lol

Some socionists cling to the fundamentalist interpretations of her works and criticize anyone who deviates in their understanding. Others try to improve on her works.



itsme45 said:


> How can then you ensure the theory itself is not skewed by it?! This is a serious question here.


You can't. Models like socionics are only approximations to reality skewed by our subjective perception and understanding of it. But you have to start somewhere.



itsme45 said:


> That's a good way of reasoning only if similar means identical...


MBTI descriptions of functions and types aren't identical to each other either and vary depending on which source you reference.



itsme45 said:


> I've heard that duality idea is also flawed because it was coming from her... why isn't the whole theory accepted as flawed because it was coming from her? lol. Seriously though, see above about that observation bias.


If she introduced a few inaccurate characterizations, it doesn't mean that everything she has ever written about is false and should be rejected. How Se/Si are defined in theory isn't of vital importance to the concept of duality.



itsme45 said:


> I agree  Socionics being quite worse with that...


Socionics is slightly better off than MBTI in this respect with its Reinin dichotomies and Forms of Thinking. MBTI doesn't have any equivalents to this.


----------



## aconite

cyamitide said:


> I link MBTI with Socionics because the sensing aspects are the only ones whose definitions considerably depart from MBTI, while definitions of the three other aspects, Thinking, Feeling, and Intuition, are remarkably similar between the two typologies. 3 out of 4 is enough for me to not see these typologies as significantly different from each other.


Not so sure about Feeling, actually. While there is a significant overlap between the definitions in both systems, some very important aspects of Feeling are attributed to different functions. For example, Fe in Socionics is heavily focused on honest expression of emotions, while Fe in MBTI is more concerned with preserving harmony and not letting personal sentiments disrupt it. In fact, much of MBTI Fe (such as sensitivity to others' feelings, or recognising relationships between people) can be attributed to Socionics Fi. If, as you said, Feeling and Intuition were remarkably similar, descriptions of the Fe-Ni type (ENFj and ENFJ) would be almost identical in both systems - and they are visibly different.


----------



## Boolean11

aconite said:


> Not so sure about Feeling, actually. While there is a significant overlap between the definitions in both systems, some very important aspects of Feeling are attributed to different functions. For example, Fe in Socionics is heavily focused on honest expression of emotions, while Fe in MBTI is more concerned with preserving harmony and not letting personal sentiments disrupt it. In fact, much of MBTI Fe (such as sensitivity to others' feelings, or recognising relationships between people) can be attributed to Socionics Fi. If, as you said, Feeling and Intuition were remarkably similar, descriptions of the Fe-Ni type (ENFj and ENFJ) would be almost identical in both systems - and they are visibly different.


aconite of the past few weeks I've been wondering why you haven't been able to see that you were using abstract logic (intuition and thinking) to justify your type. You are an INTP and that doesn't change the fact that you have remarkable similarities to the INTj personality. I've learnt that what is making it difficult for you to see that is the fact that you are looking for a sound theory to explain your type which is leading you to overlook the fact that you are an abstract logician foremost. You are not any NFs of any kind, dude, you are just not proficient with abstract ethics, its not there and deep down you know it. However because your mind seeks a stable abstract logical explanation foremost, you are oblivious to this fact, the truth is under your nose.And with the TeFi question, you are also oblivious to the fact that you are not swayed by facts in themselves in your thought process but rather facts that a driven by a sound subject which happen to confirm to objective data; which is "Ne" due to your strong Ti present. Its easy to tell the difference between an NF who is competent with logic and an NT, you'll always note that an NF needs their intuition to confirm with ethics before applying logic to make it sound (Nx Fx Tx); unlike an NT who places importance on intuition confirming with logic itself before factoring in ethics (Nx Tx Fx).


----------



## aconite

Boolean11 said:


> aconite of the past few weeks I've been wondering why you haven't been able to see that you were using abstract logic (intuition and thinking) to justify your type. You are an INTP and that doesn't change the fact that you have remarkable similarities to the INTj personality. I've learnt that what is making it difficult for you to see that is the fact that you are looking for a sound theory to explain your type which is leading you to overlook the fact that you are an abstract logician foremost. You are not any NFs of any kind, dude, you are just not proficient with abstract ethics, its not there and deep down you know it. However because your mind seeks a stable abstract logical explanation foremost, you are oblivious to this fact, the truth is under your nose.


Yes, I am an INTP. I can't recall saying I'm not, so don't bullshit me. Your problem is that you're adamant about MBTI and Socionics functions being the same and you can't notice the obvious differences between the two (in fact, you can't notice the obvious differences between MBTI and Enneagram as well, relying on stupid stereotypes in the latter case. Pot, kettle, black?). If you're as insightful as you claim, why didn't you post your big bad wall of text in my thread where I was wondering about my type? I wrote several times that I couldn't relate much to various IEI descriptions. Have you offered your sagacious advice there? But of course not! Right, better not to focus on what I wrote about myself, lest it shatter your unyelding confidence in MBTI type=Socionics type. I don't want to be a dick, really, but why in fucking seven hells didn't you write it in my thread, but here? I'd be more than willing to accept a different type, if it explained the way I process information better.



Boolean11 said:


> And with the TeFi question, you are also oblivious to the fact that you are not swayed by facts in themselves in your thought process but rather facts that a driven by a sound subject which happen to confirm to objective data; which is "Ne" due to your strong Ti present.


Gee, and here I thought that subjective logic+tangible data is Ti+Se in Socionics. I can't see any Ne in what you wrote there.



Boolean11 said:


> Its easy to tell the difference between an NF who is competent with logic and an NT, you'll always note that an NF needs their intuition to confirm with ethics before applying logic to make it sound (Nx Fx Tx); unlike an NT who places importance on intuition confirming with logic itself before factoring in ethics (Nx Tx Fx).


You've no idea how does Model A work, do you?:mellow:


----------



## Boolean11

aconite said:


> Yes, I am an INTP. I can't recall saying I'm not, so don't bullshit me. Your problem is that you're adamant about MBTI and Socionics functions being the same and you can't notice the obvious differences between the two (in fact, you can't notice the obvious differences between MBTI and Enneagram as well, relying on stupid stereotypes in the latter case. Pot, kettle, black?). If you're as insightful as you claim, why didn't you post your big bad wall of text in my thread where I was wondering about my type? I wrote several times that I couldn't relate much to various IEI descriptions. Have you offered your sagacious advice there? But of course not! Right, better not to focus on what I wrote about myself, lest it shatter your unyelding confidence in MBTI type=Socionics type. I don't want to be a dick, really, but why in fucking seven hells didn't you write it in my thread, but here? I'd be more than willing to accept a different type, if it explained the way I process information better.Gee, and here I thought that subjective logic+tangible data is Ti+Se in Socionics. I can't see any Ne in what you wrote there.You've no idea how does Model A work, do you?:mellow:


You are more concerned with constructing an abstract logical model before you accept your type. Your approach to the "Ti-Se" claim you is the use of abstract logic in reality, you are oblivious to your thought process being far more concerned with the stability of your abstract model as I said. Everybody can relate to all the socionics descriptions, all those dichotomies they set up; the subjective lens is what ruins it. I personally prefer Christopher Hitchens' provocative style in arguments( and regular discussions) were people lose immediately when they get emotional/anxious or what not. It catches/puts people off guard and forces them to utter their honest perspectives without any reason to mince words; people just provide the truth without any auspicious considerations its genius. :HITCHSLAP: when provoked as Chris would likely put it, b*tchs reveal their unconscious weak points through attack/retaliation to obscure weaknesses I've seen that you've become honest and may finally see why your mind is neglecting the possibility of exploring the subjective lens viewing the two theories as being related. You are not aware of how you've kept going around in circles looking for more evidence to construct a stable abstract theory. That more of a Ti logic floor where the mind refuses to open to all facts, Ni types have the same issue with intuition, the pursuit of the subject can easily blind the exploration with a stubborn attachment to a single subjective lens. Its being close minded


----------



## aconite

Boolean11 said:


> You are more concerned with constructing an abstract logical model before you accept your type. Your approach to the "Ti-Se" claim you is the use of abstract logic in reality, you are oblivious to your thought process being far more concerned with the stability of your abstract model as I said.


So, types other than NTs can't use abstract logic? How do they learn math, then?



Boolean11 said:


> Everybody can relate to all the socionics descriptions, all those dichotomies they set up; the subjective lens is what ruins it.


...what?



Boolean11 said:


> I personally prefer Christopher Hitchens' provocative style in arguments( and regular discussions) were people lose immediately when they get emotional/anxious or what not. It catches/puts people off guard and forces them to utter their honest perspectives without any reason to mince words; people just provide the truth without any auspicious considerations its genius. :HITCHSLAP: when provoked as Chris would likely put it, b*tchs reveal their unconscious weak points through attack/retaliation to obscure weaknesses I've seen that you've become honest and may finally see why your mind is neglecting the possibility of exploring the subjective lens viewing the two theories as being related.


Don't flatter yourself. Hitchens>>>>>you. He could deliver his intelligent and witty responses without trouble, you fail to make yourself clear. Fanboyism is adorable in it's own way, but instead of trying to copy someone else's style, come up with something original.

I know the two theories are related. Everyone knows that, so refrain from stating the obvious and pseudo-prophetic statements such as "you may finally see". Your concern is touching, though. Marry me under a rainbow pretty please? <3



Boolean11 said:


> You are not aware of how you've kept going around in circles looking for more evidence to construct a stable abstract theory. That more of a Ti logic floor where the mind refuses to open to all facts, Ni types have the same issue with intuition, the pursuit of the subject can easily blind the exploration with a stubborn attachment to a single subjective lens. Its being close minded


Oh no, not that "subjectivity" again. I get it, you believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you uses "subjective lens", and you're the one objective being on PerC.

In case you didn't notice, I wrote that I was willing to explore different types. How is that "close minded" and "refusing to open to all facts"?


I don't like your condescending tone at all. If you want to talk to me, make me respect you. Because right now I'm rolling my eyes at your posts (would it kill you to use paragraphs?) and trying to find anything useful in your consciousness streams. Maybe it would be a foreign concept to you, but if you want to convince anyone of anything, you have to possess social skills. Right now you're a few sentences shy of being as annyoing as Jehovah's Witnesses at 6 a.m. 


Moreover, there were significant points in my previous posts that you failed to adress.

1. Why do you insist that functions are exactly the same in both Socionics and MBTI despite evidence to the contrary?
2. Why do you keep writing in this thread instead of mine? Do you hope to gather more audience that way?
3. Do you actually know anything about Socionics?

If you really want to help, go to my thread and produce a convicing argument, related to what I actually wrote about myself, instead of "you're an INTj because I said so and I'm never wrong because everyone but me is SUBJECTIVE". If you just want to complain, find a therapist.


----------



## Boolean11

aconite said:


> So, types other than NTs can't use abstract logic? How do they learn math, then?...what?Don't flatter yourself. Hitchens>>>>>you. He could deliver his intelligent and witty responses without trouble, you fail to make yourself clear. Fanboyism is adorable in it's own way, but instead of trying to copy someone else's style, come up with something original.I know the two theories are related. Everyone knows that, so refrain from stating the obvious and pseudo-prophetic statements such as "you may finally see". Your concern is touching, though. Marry me under a rainbow pretty please?


----------



## Boolean11

aconite said:


> So, types other than NTs can't use abstract logic? How do they learn math, then?


SFs and NTs employ abstract logic in its classic sense whilst NFs and STs don't. Its all because NiTi and NeTe is not employing abstract logic in the classic sense, unlike the more natural pairing NiTe and TiNe.


aconite said:


> Don't flatter yourself. Hitchens>>>>>you. He could deliver his intelligent and witty responses without trouble, you fail to make yourself clear. Fanboyism is adorable in it's own way, but instead of trying to copy someone else's style, come up with something original.


Narcissistic personality at core, indifferent to external flattery or threats (possibly that makes a potential 6 being strong in my enneagram)


aconite said:


> I know the two theories are related. Everyone knows that, so refrain from stating the obvious and pseudo-prophetic statements such as "you may finally see". Your concern is touching, though. Marry me under a rainbow pretty please?


----------



## itsme45

cyamitide said:


> What differences do you see?To my knowledge, Socionics uses Jung's Introversion/Extraversion dichotomy.


Then why isn't that jungian I/E idea reflected in definitions of the socionics versions of introverted functions?


> Because Aushra is deceased and no one can un-write what she wrote lol. Some socionists cling to the fundamentalist interpretations of her works and criticize anyone who deviates in their understanding. Others try to improve on her works.


Okay, let's go on with this when they finally decide to have one consistent system that they also test more in reality. I don't really use socionics but I'll make an exception just this one time, they need some LSI type to fix up things 


> You can't. Models like socionics are only approximations to reality skewed by our subjective perception and understanding of it. But you have to start somewhere.


As above.


> MBTI descriptions of functions and types aren't identical to each other either and vary depending on which source you reference.


This is true, there is several versions of JCF function theories too.


> If she introduced a few inaccurate characterizations, it doesn't mean that everything she has ever written about is false and should be rejected. How Se/Si are defined in theory isn't of vital importance to the concept of duality.


I didn't say everything has to be rejected, I was mocking there. You are wrong though, concept of duality and function definitions are not quite independent from each other in the theory so it *is* of importance. Also, I forgot to comment on this properly:


> it is likely that you will end up being the same type, function-wise, in socionics as you were in MBTI, even if Se/Si don't match.


Ok, let's assume one ends up as the same type but e.g. only relates to Si in MBTI and not in socionics. Say, someone's ISFJ in MBTI, and SEI in socionics because of person relating to Fe in both theories but the socionics Si definition doesn't match how the person is? How are you going to resolve that issue that someone fails to fit their supposedly leading function?


> Socionics is slightly better off than MBTI in this respect with its Reinin dichotomies and Forms of Thinking. MBTI doesn't have any equivalents to this.


Just because a theory has more ideas it doesn't mean it's better. Ironically, quite the opposite is likely if it's untested ideas. That is, that it's likely to be a worse theory...


Boolean11 said:


> you are oblivious to your thought process being far more concerned with the stability of your abstract model as I said.


Wow. You're the Seer, the Prophet who can see inside other people's minds based on just a few lines of text from strangers on an internet forum. No, seriously, are you really this delusional as to believe you can actually see someone else's thought processes better than they themselves with introspection? The only tools you have for that here is just some text and that's not a very good tool. Also, a lot of your posts here in this thread don't make a lot of sense, grammatically and otherwise. Are you drunk or something?


aconite said:


> So, types other than NTs can't use abstract logic? How do they learn math, then?


OHH yes. I was always very good with math and I'm not an NT type =P.


> Marry me under a rainbow pretty please?


 Would you let me use this cute proposal elsewhere? 


> 1. Why do you insist that functions are exactly the same in both Socionics and MBTI despite evidence to the contrary?


 Because he's under the delusion that these functions actually exist in the exact form as imagined... not the first on these forums...


> Oh no, not that "subjectivity" again. I get it, you believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you uses "subjective lens", and you're the one objective being on PerC.


 Again, he's not the first one under the delusion that only he's right. Seems to be an epidemic here...


Boolean11 said:


> SFs and NTs employ abstract logic in its classic sense whilst NFs and STs don't. Its all because NiTi and NeTe is not employing abstract logic in the classic sense, unlike the more natural pairing NiTe and TiNe.


So how is NiTi not abstract logic then? Are you really saying NF's and ST's can't learn math properly?


----------



## Boolean11

itsme45 said:


> So how is NiTi not abstract logic then? Are you really saying NF's and ST's can't learn math properly?


 Jung's work is not science but the guy desperately wanted it to be, the authors thought that the functions kind of existed but they could not be certain and aren't even certain. Of course NFs and STs simply can't do any maths they are just not capable, I thought you saw my response did you see it? The site is glitching today on so many fronts anyway, the short answer is derp. Rhetorical question NiTi and NeTe is similarly a process of employing abstract logic just as NiFi and NeFe are abstract ethics, the point is that there is a different vibe to between types. NiTe and NeTi types have a different signature feel to their abstract logic and abstract ethics.paragraphs aren't working


----------



## reckful

Boolean11 said:


> I found this quote from Jung and it pretty much sums up the issue how do would you know whether the categorizations are valid or not. @reckful linked an article that criticized the functional categories made by Jung though ironically the premises for critiquing him can similarly be employed on their work; which is pretty much weak inductive logic to summarize.
> 
> "This is the fallacy of the statistical picture: It is one-sided inasmuch as it represents only the average aspect of reality and excludes the total picture. The statistical view of the world is a mere abstraction and therefore incomplete and ever fallacious, particular so when it deals with a mans psychology. Inasmuch as chance maxima and minima occur, they are facts whose nature I set out to explore." - Carl Jung


It may interest your readers to know the background of that Jung quote, which comes from Synchronicity — one of Jung's flakier less-well-respected works.

As noted in this article, Jung really _wanted_ to believe in astrology, and gathered data in the hopes that he could provide some scientific backing for it. He collected horoscope information on a pool of married couples to see if it would exhibit statistically significant correlations but — alas for astrology — the hoped-for correlations just weren't there. But rather than conclude that the results of his study were evidence against the corresponding astrological hypothesis, Jung instead dismissed his results. Here's a somewhat expanded version of that quote:



Jung said:


> To a statistician, these figures cannot be used to confirm anything, and so are valueless, because they are chance dispersions. But on psychological grounds I have discarded the idea that we are dealing with mere chance numbers. In a total picture of natural events, it is just as important to consider the exceptions to the rule as the averages. This is the fallacy of the statistical picture: it is one-sided, inasmuch as it represents only the average aspect of reality and excludes the total picture. The statistical view of the world is a mere abstraction and therefore incomplete and even fallacious, particularly so when it deals with man's psychology. Inasmuch as chance maxima and minima occur, they are facts whose nature I set out to explore.


As you may know, Jung considered himself a Ti-dom at the time he wrote Psychological Types, and here's some of what he had to say in Psychological Types about the way Ti-doms tend to relate to pesky facts:



Jung said:


> External facts are not the aim and origin of [introverted] thinking, though the introvert would often like to make his thinking appear so. ... *It formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts its attitude is one of reserve. They are all very well as illustrative examples, but they must not be allowed to predominate.* Facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake. If ever this happens, it is merely a concession to the extraverted style. ...
> 
> But no more than extraverted thinking can wrest a sound empirical concept from concrete facts or create new ones can introverted thinking translate the initial image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical accumulation of facts paralyzes thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case *introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play*.


----------



## itsme45

fourtines said:


> Yes, I have heard that ESTPs confuse themselves for ENTJs at times.
> 
> This is largely due to false ideas about Keirsey, though. I don't know if there are a ton of people who THINK they're talking about Keirsey when they haven't read _Please Understand Me II,_ because Keirsey actually describes SPs as gifted speakers and politicians, ESxP types in particular being the best at putting on an eloquent show, and he also describes ISFP authors and ISTP doctors but the going thing around the Internet is that "you're too smart to be an SP" when all Keirsey actually really says is that SPs aren't really fond of traditional organized education; it doesn't mean that they aren't self-taught, educated through alternative methods, aren't able to read or write or speak eloquently, it just means that the temperament is highly likely to chafe under the public school system, basically.
> 
> Derp.


Yea sometimes I really get "accused of" being ENTJ type.  I can see the ENTJ-ish part kinda... Interesting how Keirsey sees SP's so different from the usual S stereotype, haha. Btw I never had an issue with traditional organized education, I always liked to perform well inside it (outside it too).




reckful said:


> As noted in this article, Jung really _wanted_ to believe in astrology, and gathered data in the hopes that he could provide some scientific backing for it. He collected horoscope information on a pool of married couples to see if it would exhibit statistically significant correlations but — alas for astrology — the hoped-for correlations just weren't there. But rather than conclude that the results of his study were evidence against the corresponding astrological hypothesis, Jung instead dismissed his results.


Now I'm really disappointed in Jung. Did he really think it's just "chance dispersions"? What the fuck is that expression even supposed to mean? That sounds like complete disregard for cause-and-effect.

And what is the idea of discarding something "on psychological grounds"?




> As you may know, Jung considered himself a Ti-dom at the time he wrote Psychological Types, and here's some of what he had to say in Psychological Types about the way Ti-doms tend to relate to pesky facts:


So ironic he recognized this tendency in himself. 




Boolean11 said:


> What makes somebody an ENTJ or ESTP then when fundamental the ground for setting up those dichotomies are absent.


True, this is all just kinda the same as basic theory-of-mind that people already have preinstalled in their brains. Real fundamental ground would come from biological based approach.




> Sure there may exist in a person's worldview but it would be just the construct of theirs. Which elements are supposed to exist "statically", the key word there static, to determine whether the construct of a man falls into either of the category or neither? This reminds me of the fallacies behind "praxeology", the behaviorist's study of human action, *how would we know whether the actions observed are inline with the core motivations/thought process patterns which supposedly remain consistent when abstracted?*


We do not know. I like to ask this question to others, however nobody was ever willing to even give it a thought. -.-




> A person could display thoughts and actions that are inline with a particular type and then for some odd reason then happen to later change displaying thoughts and actions that are inline with a separate type in conflict with the original analysis. The person in question may not even be aware even when self convinced that they have such a level of understanding. People can rationalize their instincts, gut feelings fooling themselves: and also such a conviction is difficult to assess but its presence is highlighted by the sudden changes of behavior which complicate the previous analysis. Sure rationalization can occur with some subjective logic inserted and intended to provide an answer though it doesn't hide the dynamic inconsistent nature of human beings.


This is my reasoning as well. Type is an illusion in this way. The only thing that is not an illusion IMO is that there is indeed a different distribution of kinds of thoughts etc. between different people. Basically, yes, people are different. The thing is, the system(s) in the theories put behind this observation is something you need to approach with skepticism.




> I found this quote from Jung and it pretty much sums up the issue how would you know whether the categorizations are valid or not.


Categories are valid if they don't exist. Haha. Read up on human category perception if you haven't yet. Though, I do think that in lower level nature sciences the categories used are a lot more OK. Arriving at biology, it all starts to muddle up if we try to jump too fast into the higher levels of analysis.


----------



## aconite

itsme45 said:


> Now I'm really disappointed in Jung. Did he really think it's just "chance dispersions"? What the fuck is that expression even supposed to mean? That sounds like complete disregard for cause-and-effect.


Probably an irrational belief taking precedence over measurable data - a fancy way to say "statistics didn't prove what I wanted? fuck statistics then!"; I mean, people have all sorts of irrational beliefs, but dismissing an useful tool because the actual result was different from the expected one strikes me as extremely petty.



itsme45 said:


> This reminds me of the fallacies behind "praxeology", the behaviorist's study of human action, *how would we know whether the actions observed are inline with the core motivations/thought process patterns which supposedly remain consistent when abstracted?*
> 
> 
> 
> We do not know. I like to ask this question to others, however nobody was ever willing to even give it a thought. -.-
Click to expand...

Since one of the most basic characteristics of human personality is that our perspective shifts with time (in some cases very drastically), an ideal theory would account for these changes. I like the Enneagram (esoteric as it is), because it focuses on underlying motivation rather than behavioural traits and explains how the same basic fixation could manifest in different ways (and, how the same behaviour could be cause by different fixations).

However, since the topic is focused on Jungian types and derivatives (MBTI/Socionics), and the premise is that the type doesn't change throughout an individual's life (well, supposedly), I guess that the focus on more abstract and basic understanding could be helpful. E.g. Augusta, the founder of Socionics, defined Fi as the information element focused on subjective relationships "between two carriers of potential or kinetic energy that shows the level of attraction (or repulsion) between one object or subject and another object or subject" (translation from socionics.us) and if we assume that her reasoning is right, then all Fi-leading types see the world through the lens of relationships, like/dislike, repulsion/attraction, wishes and desires. Which is completely fine and can be used to explain many kinds of behaviour. The problem is that there could be many interpretations of it - there exists a (kind of stereotypical) view that all ExI types are moralistic and judgemental; in many cases it's true, but not always.

Not to mention the somewhat annoying tendency to confuse people's jobs, hobbies and occupations with the way they perceive information: "I think he's ESTP because he's an athlete" or "I think she's ENTJ because she's a CEO". Yeah right :/



itsme45 said:


> This is my reasoning as well. Type is an illusion in this way. The only thing that is not an illusion IMO is that there is indeed a different distribution of kinds of thoughts etc. between different people. Basically, yes, people are different. The thing is, the system(s) in the theories put behind this observation is something you need to approach with skepticism.


Well, I like to think of personality types as an approximation, at least on the description level. Take a photo (which already is an approximation of reality) and convert it to 4-bit indexed. You'll have 16 colours then, and the subject will be recognisable in most cases, but the image will be clearly not realistic. In case my analogy is not 100% clear, you can think of personality systems as color quantization algorithms.


----------



## itsme45

Definitely said:


> Probably an irrational belief taking precedence over measurable data - a fancy way to say "statistics didn't prove what I wanted? fuck statistics then!"; I mean, people have all sorts of irrational beliefs, but dismissing an useful tool because the actual result was different from the expected one strikes me as extremely petty.


"Petty" is an understatement.

As for the next part of your text, my conclusions are pretty similar to yours.




> Well, I like to think of personality types as an approximation, at least on the description level. Take a photo (which already is an approximation of reality) and convert it to 4-bit indexed. You'll have 16 colours then, and the subject will be recognisable in most cases, but the image will be clearly not realistic. In case my analogy is not 100% clear, you can think of personality systems as color quantization algorithms.


I was actually thinking of another visual analogy  But similar idea


----------



## Kanerou

The original article is quite interesting, but I don't see the background given for it (these are Aestrivex's thoughts on Aleksei's article), and the OP is structured in a way that is quite confusing and unclear. It looks much better in the link posted.


----------



## aestrivex

Kanerou said:


> The original article is quite interesting, but I don't see the background given for it (these are Aestrivex's thoughts on Aleksei's article), and the OP is structured in a way that is quite confusing and unclear. It looks much better in the link posted.


for once, i gladly respond to a critique of my work being graphically unappealing and poorly formatted: this time, it is totally in absolutely no way at all my fault. go complain to somebody else.


----------



## Kanerou

aestrivex said:


> for once, i gladly respond to a critique of my work being graphically unappealing and poorly formatted: this time, it is totally in absolutely no way at all my fault. go complain to somebody else.


Actually, I was complaining at the person who posted the OP and didn't format said post for clarity. I like the way you have it formatted on the wiki, which is what I was trying to say in my previous post. That apparently was not clear, so my apologies.


----------



## aestrivex

Kanerou said:


> Actually, I was complaining at the person who posted the OP and didn't format said post for clarity. I like the way you have it formatted on the wiki, which is what I was trying to say in my previous post. That apparently was not clear, so my apologies.


it was entirely clear, but i decided to take advantage of my noninvolvement anyway.


----------



## Kanerou

aestrivex said:


> it was entirely clear, but i decided to take advantage of my noninvolvement anyway.


In that case, I am confused. Why tell me to complain to someone else when I was already doing so? Was it a joke?


----------



## aestrivex

Kanerou said:


> In that case, I am confused. Why tell me to complain to someone else when I was already doing so? Was it a joke?


in a manner of speaking.


----------



## Promethea

Kanerou said:


> The original article is quite interesting, but I don't see the background given for it (these are Aestrivex's thoughts on Aleksei's article), and the OP is structured in a way that is quite confusing and unclear. It looks much better in the link posted.


Well then by all means look at the link instead. I'm not too concerned about making my posts pretty - and that wasn't the point. I would prefer it if people in this thread would discuss the actual topic instead of how non-aesthetically pleasing the OP is to them.


----------



## Kanerou

Promethea said:


> Well then by all means look at the link instead. I'm not too concerned about making my posts pretty - and that wasn't the point. I would prefer it if people in this thread would discuss the actual topic instead of how non-aesthetically pleasing the OP is to them.


If I merely was concerned about making the post pretty, I could have asked you to add colors and pictures. However, it's not just about making the post "pretty"; it's about making the post easier to read and comprehend. Clarity could very well help the discussion of said post, which you desire. I agree that the thread did veer off-topic a bit, but I think that tangent is finished now.


----------



## Acerbusvenator

Haven't really read much here, but I consistently score as IEI (INFp) in socionics, tho I am an INTJ in MBTI. Just found that to be an interesting situation.

EDIT: Just read up a bit and find that I identify a lot more with ILI than IEI.
Guess it wasn't that interesting after all.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

@Promethea
- holy shit, Socionics Si sounds like an Sp dom 7 
that's NOTHING like Jungian Si :laughing:
- Socionics Fi sounds more like an MBTI IxFJ 2 or 9w1
- Socionics Se sounds like an Enneagram 3 or 8w7
- Fe sounds like some of So dom ExxP


----------



## Promethea

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @Promethea
> - holy shit, Socionics Si sounds like an Sp dom 7
> that's NOTHING like Jungian Si :laughing:
> - Socionics Fi sounds more like an MBTI IxFJ 2 or 9w1
> - Socionics Se sounds like an Enneagram 3 or 8w7
> - Fe sounds like some of So dom ExxP


Lol.. I try to tell ppl, theys different thangs. XD


----------



## bearotter

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Socionics Se sounds like an Enneagram 3 or 8w7




In fact, I believe the Naranjo account of 8 compares them to the Se-dom type, and when people think 8, I daresay they _seem_​ to think w7.




> that's NOTHING like Jungian Si :laughing:


Yup. I think I Si quite a bit in the non-socionics sense, but Si is about where it should be for LII.





The F functions really confuse me. I still don't know how to really look at them. Like they appear to me as characterizations which I cannot interrelate to / contrast with T very directly in my own mind. They just seem sort of .... there. Perhaps at some point, someone will explain how to really look at them to me. I daresay I understand the Jungian F types on a mental level at least.

My feeling about socionics nowadays is I enjoy their organizational scheme most, but have a harder time really digging (not in a critical way, but just in terms of intellectual comfort) the functions presentations, but that of course means I probably await the right perspective.


----------



## Kanerou

@_Promethea_ More on this (not being the same thing) here and here. The latter includes discussion by actual socionists.
@bearotter I left a definition of Fi in the Delta Hangout thread, if you are interested and still need an outside perspective on it.


----------



## Kanerou

I find it ironic that MBTI Feeling is about where one's values originate (internally vs externally), while Socionics Ethics focuses on the feelings/sentiments/attachments between people and expressed emotion. Seems like they'd be more accurate if the terms were switched.


----------



## gwho

> so in its unhealthy form, it turns into conspiracy theories


you mean false conspiracy theories.

killing caesar was an actual conspiracy. detective work is 100% conspiracy theories that chase evidence to validate one out of continual refining of conspiracy theories.

people get sentenced on charge of conspiracy.


----------



## gwho

even after reading all that, i still don't know what the difference between socionics and MBTI is. they seem to be all semantic and just slightly different. 

I fully understand the bit about socionics Te being action, and fixing, and improving, and entrepreneurially oriented. That's a big more clear and concrete. but still explanations are very hazy.

I think there is a big lack of clear explanation of the difference between mbti and socionics.

This article could benefit a lot from some formatting and editing, for clarity and impact... also shortening it down. It goes on a lot about semantics in a very lengthy way, when it could be shorter and more to-the-point.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

All I can say it's the more I read on Socionics and the more time I spent in personality type forums, the less ENFP I feel. The IEE descriptions never hit gome either.

By MBTI ENFP seems right, but not on Socionics.

There's also no way my personal views, feelings and romantic experiences could ever fit into the Infantile description. That was actually the first huge giveaway that made me start questioning my Socionics type. Then came the realization that the Static thinking style isn't mine either. 

I'm actually starting a thread on the Soconics forum, this problem has me questioning my MBTI too.


----------



## gwho

Dancing_Queen said:


> All I can say it's the more I read on Socionics and the more time I spent in personality type forums, the less ENFP I feel. The IEE descriptions never hit gome either.
> 
> By MBTI ENFP seems right, but not on Socionics.
> 
> There's also no way my personal views, feelings and romantic experiences could ever fit into the Infantile description. That was actually the first huge giveaway that made me start questioning my Socionics type. Then came the realization that the Static thinking style isn't mine either.
> 
> I'm actually starting a thread on the Soconics forum, this problem has me questioning my MBTI too.


maybe you're god.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

gwho said:


> maybe you're god.











HA HA HA HA...*no*.


----------



## gwho

Dancing_Queen said:


> HA HA HA HA...*no*.


or a rock.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

gwho said:


> or a rock.


Nah, I move around too much.


----------



## gwho

> Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Romancing Styles
> 
> *Romance Styles*
> 
> 
> *Aggressors:  SLE (ESTp), LSI (ISTj), ESI (ISFj), SEE (ESFp)*​
> The Aggressor types, identified as such by Viktor Gulenko, are the four types with Se in their ego.
> 
> *Victims: EIE (ENFj), IEI (INFp), LIE (ENTj), ILI (INTp)*​
> The Victim types, identified as such by Viktor Gulenko, are the four types with Ni in their ego
> 
> *Caregivers:  ESE (ESFj), SEI (ISFp), LSE (ESTj), SLI (ISTp)*​
> The Caregiver types, identified as such by Viktor Gulenko, are the four types with Si in their ego.
> 
> *Infantiles: ILE (ENTp), LII (INTj), IEE (ENFp), EII (INFj)*​
> The Infantile types, identified as such by Viktor Gulenko, are the four types with Ne in their ego.


There are 8 cognitive functions. I'm too lazy to do the math, but you can rearrange them in 8P8 ways, which is simply 8! ways or 40320 ways. Out of these, we applied certain rules, and reduced this down to 16 types.

We can do the same for grouping. out of the 16 types, if we want to create four groups of 4, we can get 16C4 groups, or 16! / (4! *  12!) groups. We divide this by 4, because four groups of 4 obtained through a certain set of rules results in ONE arrangement (e.g. quadras). so 16! / (4 * 4! * 12!) = 455. Out of these, quadras is just one such grouping of four 4's. Romance Styles is another.

Here is a formulaic method of advancing socionics: Find a permutation or set of grouping or rearranging cognitive functions. Find a pattern, and match it with something useful or meaningful idea.

examples:
"group the types with four conscious cognitive functions. What do these guys have in common? they have the same overall world view values, need each other. we'll call this Quadras. "

"Pick a perceiving function in the ego block, and group those. What do they have in common? oh certain tendencies in romance. call those Romance Styles."

And you can go find others by different grouping or permutation. As long as you have a cohesive theme, and can demonstrate that to be reflected in reality, you've got yourself a thesis. You can do this not only with grouping four 4's, but perhaps with pairings, or a different model of the types. In any case, you're starting off with all the possible permutations, and whittling them down by applying certain rules that have a basis in reality, and whose resulting theory is something useful for application and prediction.


----------



## itsme45

gwho said:


> so it is a semantic difference of JP-dom and JP-extro, just as some cognitive functions may have slightly different meanings, and how socionics says the cog funcs are actual way of dividing reality, whereas MBTI cog funcs are merely within the brain and the mind.
> 
> So what you mentioned is getting to whether those semantic difference are actually very significant, and some method of saying that perhaps one way of thinking of it is actually wrong... i'm having trouble pinpointing why. care to go more into it? perhaps what we really need is just some external sources.


I'm going to reply here because I don't feel like OT'ing any longer and it belongs here instead anyway.

I will warn you in advance, I'm not going to bother too much to respond to all those parts of your post that are completely senseless (attempts at attacking me, reading bullshit into the lines about my intentions, etc etc).




gwho said:


> I too view you as an idiot when it comes to following any logic, as clearly evidenced.


You think I care? 




> Funny, because you're trying to cite something as proof for what we've already discussed as not sufficient proof.


No, I posted the link (to this thread actually) because it explains differences between MBTI Si and socionics Si (and some other differences as well). Easier to do that than typing in the exact same stuff as my thoughts are pretty similar to the first post in this thread, directly linking to first post now: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ctions-socionics-im-elements.html#post2901295

I could delve into it a bit more though, e.g. how Si users in MBTI are typically responsible, conservative, hard working while Si users in socionics are more concerned with enjoying sensations, leisure etc and are open the new (Ne-seeking). Of course, functions are cognitive/information processing aspects but type descriptions are generated from traits most readily linked to such aspects. And the function definitions were already directly compared in the post at the above link.

You've asked me to describe exactly how I think aspects of the two theories are different in an incompatible and not complementary way, well here it is. This is just one example though.




> is that what  MBTI actually says? if so how so? what is the criteria?


Yes. If you are not happy with the (several) links I've given you, then praytell, what source did you use to learn MBTI and socionics? Or, rather, what are the official sources of MBTI and socionics? You tell me that and then we can examine what those sources say about e.g. Si.

Until you do that, you're just trying to duck around the actual issue babbling about nonsense.




> You didn't give  me any, i put forth a couple. you still just say stuff with no backing. I  can do the same, but I don't.


Yes it is exactly what you are doing. And I'm getting bored with that. You either tell me what you think of as official MBTI and socionics sources instead of just arbitrarily rejecting the sources I've offered or this is the end of it as far as I'm concerned.




> Go to that link and it's a copy paste from a wiki, which is a  broken link.


It's a copypaste with comments. Seems you never bothered to read it then if you didn't notice the comments.




> These are all authoritative researchers. It's not like there is a papacy  and one researcher who is infallible or anything like that. Just  because Beebe is an "authoritative researcher" it does'nt mean  eveyrhting he says is what MBTI says. what if Beebe and Kiersey  contradict or differ? Kiersey is also an "authoritative researcher".


If e.g. Beebe and Keirsey contradict then that's certainly something to focus on to see why as such a thing would clearly bring up further questions about the validity of the theories.




> And after I explained it, you  get caught up on "authoritative". Stuff like this is what exasperates  me


Then you misunderstood that. 




> not  pointlessly debating me for _why I think MBTI Si and socionics Si_ aren't different. If i did say it, what would you do? attack it? that's fine, and I welcome it.


Sure if you have thoughts on why they aren't different, feel free to post about it! That would have more point than this bullshitting around.




> But do you really care what I think, or do you care what the theories  actually claim, as well as knowing for sure that that's what they claim?  I've already been honest with you that I don't know. I would appreciate  the honesty from you, that all you really wanted to do by posting on  this thread in the first place, is to get me to say something and show  me how i'm wrong. How much value is that to you?


I was interested in why you think the conflicting aspects of the two theories are not actually conflicting... aye I would have wanted to debate it then if I disagreed (most likely ). You didn't originally reply to me in this thread and I saw you bringing it up instead in Dancing_Queen's type-me thread.




> If you don't  see that you should be looking for the sources to figure this out,  instead of asking me


Nooo, I'm not asking you to help me figure it out from the sources. Did you really think that? Ehh.




> The fact that you even brought up another thread's topic into this one seems like all you really want to do is pick a fight.


Well sure I was curious what you think about the differences and then debate it if we disagree, yea 
But not a fight in the personal sense.




> All those site who give definitions could be copy pasting from a source  so the multitude has nothing to do with it. Just like popular opinion  doesn't mean anything regarding truth.


"Could be", I'm not interested in such speculation. Is it so or is it not so? That's what I care about. So show me the official sources because I'm not going to bother with giving you more links to sources because you will just say they might not be acceptable for whatever possible reason or some other nonsense. I actually had a feeling you might try doing that after I get you links.




> I can say why I don't think they're different.


Then say it!




> I can't believe i'm still explaining this. Very frustrating, and not worth talking to.


There was no need to explain such a basic thing heh. You got off track there.




> It may entirely be that MBTI and socionoics' Si definitions are in fact different. *I'm not saying that they're not.*  I'm saying "how do you know?"


So you don't actually have an opinion? You definitely sounded like you thought MBTI is the same as socionics and that both theories are just as good and are talking about the same thing, just socionics is more advanced. I disagree that this is that simple. 

Also then you say here that they don't seem different to you...




> I've read plenty of definitions. Again, they don't seem all the  different to me. I don't have a problem with it. If you think they're  different then show me why you think theyre different.


Okay, then, I showed you now, respond to that.




> you're being INCREDIBLY passive aggressive here. and it's very offensive. wow.
> first you wrongly accuse me of not being interested, and now you *shrug*. Do you not see what a dick move that is?


No, I'm not passive aggressive, I'm just simply not bothered 




> repetition and social confirmation mean nothing  in terms of truth


That's right but this isn't about simple repetition. Also, official stance may still not be the truth. 




> You (...) with the clear intention of simply refuting my take on it, which has no  bearing on the actual truth of the matter of whether MBTI and socionoics  actually claim those definitions you quoted in the other thread.


Well, if the truth is that they are the same theories then I'm willing to hear your specific arguments for that. I believe that's not the truth though. So I expect strong and explicit arguments about the actual topic at hand. I would like to move beyond the issue of sources so I've asked you to show me what the official sources are.




> You can feel watever you want. But it comes off as pretty passive  aggressive to me. It sounds to me like you're being dodgey and  displaying distain because you're admiting a point of perceived  vulnerability.


If you finally answer me on what the official sources are and/or on why you think they - theories and/or the mentioned aspects of the theories - are the same, then I will stop seeing YOU as dodgy.




> then you think *jsut  because someone is "authoritative" it means mean no one else is  "authoritative"*. i'm holding back as much as I can


1) I didn't think the bolded. You clearly misunderstood something.
2) No need to hold back, feel free to vent if that makes you feel better, no worries 




> Because of what I said about correlations. That, or you'll have to point out a direct causal link between the aspects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, you have to show why you think they are different.
Click to expand...

Actually the quoted is relevant in terms of how one can't just claim different aspects of one function are the same unless they follow directly from each other or there is some kind of causal link - which has to be explicitly shown.


----------



## liminalthought

Refreshing this, putting a tab on it to work on later. The purpose and original foundation of the OP and entire first page (scratch the derail pages after it) is highly useful and needs continuation. Page one should be kept the standard. 

This thread is supplementary to its becoming manifestation: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/164270-possible-mbti-enfp-socionics-enfj-10.html

Post #1 in original form: http://techhouse.org/~nietzsche/essay_jcf.html (scroll down!)
(*Not my endorsement. *This is amateur work, I share the same status.)

_Take it as aestivex's opinion, as if he were posting like anyone else in this thread to "contrast [JCF] functions with [IM elements]"_

Post #4 by Cyamtide conveniently contains the essential materials to work with for fulfilling the purpose laid out in the title of this thread. Don't ignore the definitions, otherwise you're already off track in your path to "contrast" them, you probably won't be contrasting anything and won't be contributing.


----------



## liminalthought

^The robots are attacking :crazy:


----------



## liminalthought

Helios said:


> -Judger/Perceiver vs rational/irrational and how it's applied [there's enough of this already, google search]
> -Keirsey's temperaments don't even pay the functions any mind really, while other portions of MBTI do
> -4 function model vs. the 8 function model in some descriptions
> -The levels of consciousness within the psyche
> -Temperament groupings
> -Intertype and the concept of dualism
> -What functions are
> -The information elements not being the same as the functions in MBTI
> -Whether or not the second/auxiliary function should be of the same attitude as the dominant [this more for a jung vs. mbti / particularly advocated by the user named *reckful*]


Excellent
I don't care much for Keirsey. He does have his use, but not too relevant here. I'm glad I asked you, now we have somewhat of a map to go by. It looks like there won't be an easy way out of this, dirty work is necessary (going through your list one-by-one). I don't favor either side of this argument, all I'm interested in is fleshing it out, come what may. An experiment…

I want there to be as least possible mish-mash/obfuscation of theory concepts, given the nature of forum discussion, _we'll take it piecemeal (or, at least, I will...I'm prone to overload)_

Priority List
_MBTI_
1)The information elements not being the same as the functions in MBTI
2)What functions are (ex: mbti auxiliary vs socionics creative)

_Beebe_
3)the 8 function model in some descriptions
4)Intertype and the concept of dualism
5)The levels of consciousness within the psyche



Helios said:


> Fe in both systems does deal with some sort of awareness of emotional states of others or the general atmosphere.....


Great starting point. 


> Extraverted ethics
> 
> Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods. This perceptual element implies the ability to know what excites people, and what suppresses them. It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people.
> When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the innate ability to induce or convey his moods to others and energize people with his emotions. He is able to activate the psychological/spiritual lives of other people and their emotional readiness for action. You might say that such a person has the ability to infect others with his moods and tends to impose on others the emotional states that he considers beneficial for their life activities.
> 
> What people usually call emotions or a person's display of emotions is neither more nor less than a form of letting out this internal excitation directly, almost without expending it in muscle activity. A cheerful person who laughs releases an emotional charge and inner excitation through certain movements of the muscles of the face and body. This might be a means for reducing overexcitement, when inner exertion cannot be used for the activity it was intended for. But it can also be a conscious method of conveying one's excitement/agitation to others — inducing one's internal excitement/agitation in the psyches of other people. Anger, for example, is also a way of reducing overexcitement, but it is usually directed not at arousing others emotionally, but at emotionally suppressing and depleting them, at lowering their activity level, or at strictly channeling their activity.
> 
> _Augusta
> _---------------------------------------------
> 
> *Object ethics* - ethics of the outside world. People's attitude to me and to each other. Other people's emotions, external relations, which "can be seen with the naked eye." Unlike a subject of ethics - is something like "the ability to make friends", to live the universal positive, positive emotions to each other, to create a positive and like each other, the morality of society, some of the group to which the person belongs. Morale is public, it is somewhat choppy in essence, since the concept of norms is constantly adjusted society. Important to be able to like, more inherently manipulative, but people are often more easy and agreeable, are able to like, and not just "stick to their line of morality." Also under this can mean such a thing as a social expectation, then there is a requirement for the adequacy of human behavior based on the specific situation in terms of society or group: for example - in terms of social roles. "I came to work, said hello, and I even said no, do not respect."
> 
> _Golijov_





> *Dominant: Extraverted feeling (Fe)*
> 
> Fe seeks social connections and creates harmonious interactions through considerate, enthusiastic, and charming behavior. Fe responds to the explicit (and implicit) wants of others, and may even create an internal conflict between the subject’s own needs and the desire to meet the needs of others.
> _wikipedia
> _------------------------------------------------------------
> Depends wholly upon the ideals, conventions, and customs of the environment, and is extensive rather than deep. Finds soundess and value outside of the individual in the collective ideals of the community, which are usually accepted without question. Has as its goal the formation and maintenance of easy and harmonious emotional relationships with other people. Expresses itself easily and so shares itself with others, creating and arousing similar feeling and establishing warm sympathy and understanding. Value, above all, harmonious human contacts. Friendly, tactful, sympathetic, able almost always to express feelings at the appropriate moment.
> _Gifts Differing_
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Extraverted Feeling (Fe)* makes sense of the world by viewing it in terms of where you stand with other people: interpreting signs that indicate the category of your relationship. As an epistemological perspective, Fe leads you to view every sign as an expression of people's loyalties. A simple example is that displaying a flag demonstrates your loyalty to country. What matters is how you go above and beyond efficient means to an end. For example, throwing a party in someone's honor is not "necessary" for survival: it's a gesture that goes above and beyond survival, expressing your feelings for the guest of honor in a way that all can understand. From an Fe perspective, words are never neutral descriptions of fact: your choice of words, your choice of topic, is a declaration of your feelings and loyalties. As an ethical perspective, Fe leads you to believe that "life is with people": to understand one's value and meaning in terms of your standing in the community--in terms of the people whom you influence and their feelings about you.
> _Supposedly Lenore Thompson, may be shoddy: _http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/
> http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/134-Lenore-Thomson-MBTI-Functions#comments
> --------------------------------------------------------
> More here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...s-of-cognitive-functions-from-various-sources


-------------------------------------------------------------



Helios said:


> Fe in both systems does deal with some sort of awareness of emotional states of others or the general atmosphere, as well as pushing for how people should feel and value things.



Given.



Helios said:


> However in MBTI, Fe is often attributed to maintaining social graces and the emphasis is too often placed on Fe focusing on the emotional aspects of a situation and adjusting itself accordingly.


It looks like socionics Fe also claims engagement with outside emotional atmosphere's and adjusting to it. The socionics definition seems to give it more freedom, however, since it says that the the adjusting Fe user may still hold his own individual stance internally. Socionics descriptions of functions are more dynamic in that they provide more insight into the internal processes of a person using it, unlike MBTI which only describes some of the external products associated with a person using Fe (ex: resulting nature: friendly, tactful / resulting actions: grasping of external customs, ideals, conventions, treating them like objects, and not internally derived). Both are trying to grasp at something similar and make estimations of it as best they can, but are they grasping at two different things? I don't think so.





Helios said:


> In socionics this focus and adjustment can explained by the constructivist vs emotivist dichotomy. Fe basetypes are constructivists and try to minimize this aspect of social interaction, despite being aware of the emotional states in others and how to bring about emotional states in other people.


The characteristics described in MBTI Fe don't necessarily conflict with the purpose of the constructivist vs emotivist dichotomy. MBTI Fe is describing a function and what a person does with it, but not the result of a combination of functions as the dichotomy does. I'd appreciate more feedback on this idea.


----------



## Biohazard Heart

I appreciate this post as it clarified a deep personal issue for me. I was introduced to personality typing via socionics and got into mbti. When it comes to MBTI I'm definitely an Fi and Ne user... probably ENFP. However, this confused me a lot because I knew about duality and didn't understand the difference in functions.... and I absolutely abhor the way Te is often used. I find it cold, scary, rude, distant.. abusive of people's right to be an individual perhaps.. and I find mbti Si... boring. I get frustrated when people won't try new things.

This made me feel better. Why? Because by these functions I definitely am mbti Fi and Ne but I'd put money on being some sort of socionic Fe user. Thanks for helping me realize I'm not Te seeking xD

Edit: Te users, feel free to show me you're nice. I'm always welcome to believing the Te dominate I interacted most deeply with was terribly unhealthy with other underlying issues.


----------



## TruthDismantled

How do you guys become aware of what your dominant functions are? Do you take some time to introspect as you're going about your normal lives, and ticking off when you express a particular function or something?

I find it so difficult to know these things because I see all of the functions within me a fairly equal amount. It may be because I haven't realized my identity yet and I'm still trying out different approaches to the world, but I find this an impossible task.

The one function I feel most confident I have is Fe. But then wtf does external values and morals mean, you get your sense of values from the external environment? Errr no, I assume I'm not interpreting it right but I have my own moral system and sense of values. I don't conform to the groups views on ethical issues, or moral codes. It sounds like blind conformity to me, I'm a little confused. 


And how can some people believe we only use four functions? So if you have Si then you never see objective reality, never process things on a surface level?

Does the fact that someone can seem unapproachable to me because I sense nervous, unpredictable energy in them make me an Se, or Fe user? Couldn't everyone see that? Is it the way that you come to those conclusions that determines the functions? 

It just seems to me that people show varying levels of feeling, thinking, intuition and sensing towards the inner mechanisms of the object (introverted) and the outer manifestations (extroverted) along one scale and some psychologists have given the most extreme of each end a name. 

If you ask an Fe-dom then an Fi-dom why murder is wrong then how will their answers differ?


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

UndercoverInstigator said:


> How do you guys become aware of what your dominant functions are? Do you take some time to introspect as you're going about your normal lives, and ticking off when you express a particular function or something?


For me it was a gut instinct. There's no other function I identify more with than Ni. It feels like a part of me, like I could just forget Fe and Ti if I wanted but not Ni. And Se is there but it makes me feel incomplete.



> I find it so difficult to know these things because I see all of the functions within me a fairly equal amount. It may be because I haven't realized my identity yet and I'm still trying out different approaches to the world, but I find this an impossible task.


Maybe.



> The one function I feel most confident I have is Fe. But then wtf does external values and morals mean, you get your sense of values from the external environment? Errr no, I assume I'm not interpreting it right but I have my own moral system and sense of values. I don't conform to the groups views on ethical issues, or moral codes. It sounds like blind conformity to me, I'm a little confused.


Ok, let me put it this way. If a person was only Se, in other words, a person with a greatly exagerated conscious attitude, whose other functions were greatly ignored, they would become entirely dependent on the external enviroment for sensual stimulus. If someone was pure Ne they'd indiscriminately go after every possibility that their minds could think of. Likewise, if someone was pure Fe they wouldn't have an opinion of their own and would be dependent on the external value of things. But practically no one is that way. Because we have other functions to balance things out. Now, Fe-doms care about value consensus. They focus on creating values that represent a group. This values are normally discussed with the members of the group. Fe types can and will disagree with certain values and they will critize them in order to create a new value consensus. Fe types also work with externally given values. An example that Jung uses is a Fe type going to somebody's house, seeing a painting hanging on the wall and saying "That's a beautiful painting!" not because the Fe type personally felt a great admiration towards the painting, but because it's the kind of thing that you tipically say in such situations. This Fe-dom never even thought about what he felt towards the painting when he said that. I think these external values can come off as preconceived notions or assumptions. But that doesn't mean the Fe type is never going to have an opinion of his own. The other functions should give him more of his individuality.
Also, thinkers tend to develop "principles". These are much more pragmatic than feelers' morals and don't really come from a place of feeling. They can, however, arrive at the same conclusions.



> And how can some people believe we only use four functions? So if you have Si then you never see objective reality, never process things on a surface level?


Hmm I've thought about this but I'm not sure really. I'm guessing if someone has a Si preference then their Ne might do the work where you would use Se.



> Does the fact that someone can seem unapproachable to me because I sense nervous, unpredictable energy in them make me an Se, or Fe user? Couldn't everyone see that? Is it the way that you come to those conclusions that determines the functions?


I don't think I understand the questions very well. Couldn't everyone see what? Perceive someone else as nervous and unpredictable? And why does that mean you are Se-Fe?



> It just seems to me that people show varying levels of feeling, thinking, intuition and sensing towards the inner mechanisms of the object (introverted) and the outer manifestations (extroverted) along one scale and some psychologists have given the most extreme of each end a name.


Umm ok, so you think the types or the cognitive functions as they are defined are exagerated?



> If you ask an Fe-dom then an Fi-dom why murder is wrong then how will their answers differ?


I'll leave this question to somebody else because I don't really tend to think of what to look for before reading an answer...


----------



## Fatman

First,I admire your article.And I'de rather skip it for now,to read it more deeper.
I just have one question?If I'm 90% sure that I'm an INTP,does learning more about socionic more helpful to me?


----------

