# ISTP social role according to socionics



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Sensing Logical Introtim - Wikisocion
Socionics SLI, ISTp
Likely MBTI: ISTJ


> *Common social roles*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Logical Sensing Introtim - Wikisocion
Socionics LSI, ISTj
Likely MBTI: ISTP


> *Common social roles*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Do you guys agree with this description of your two main functions?



> Ego Block1.  Introverted LogicLSIs have a strong command of how various systems, structures, and hierarchies around them work, and always have a clear idea of how to implement them and improve them. LSIs quickly and easily determine what is correct and incorrect according to the systems they are familiar with.
> LSIs tend to logically analyze just about everything — even close relationships. LSIs view their partners and other members of their household as part of a system which should have a certain structure and order to it. Everything in this system should run like clockwork — scheduling, daily routines, responsibilities in the relationship, and household management.
> LSIs seek to attain an important role in an important system and to maintain and perfect it — often becoming the guardian or watchdog of the system.
> LSIs do not often think about the ethics of the systems they maintain. Instead, they discuss the ethics of other systems using the language and customs of their own systems as truth, and make value judgments accordingly.
> ...


----------



## Aquc (Apr 18, 2012)

> Everything in this system should run like clockwork — scheduling, daily routines, responsibilities in the relationship, and household management.
> LSIs seek to attain an important role in an important system and to maintain and perfect it — often becoming the guardian or watchdog of the system.


Hell no. But the rest is fairly good.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

I'd be SLI #2 with LSI #5 and disagree with both descriptions, for most part.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Erbse said:


> I'd be SLI #2 with LSI #5 and disagree with both descriptions, for most part.


So you aren't a sensor in socionics? Or maybe you aren't even introverted in it?


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

Socionics and MBTI functions are different to each other. Please don't post Socionics stuff in a MBTI forum. It doesn't belong here.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Crafter79 said:


> Socionics and MBTI functions are different to each other. Please don't post Socionics stuff in a MBTI forum. It doesn't belong here.


How are the socionics functions radically different from the MBTI ones then? How is Se radically different in MBTI (or the other functions for that matter)?

Just post what credible links really prove their massive difference?



> *Si vs. Ni: a focus on one's environment and how it's affecting one's physical state vs. a focus on a situation's development over time and other underlying meanings*
> 
> *Se vs. Ne: active acquisition, control, and organization of visible territory and objects vs. active search for and development of invisible potential and emerging situations*
> 
> ...


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> So you aren't a sensor in socionics? Or maybe you aren't even introverted in it?


I don't care for socionics, and not too much for MBTI either anymore.

I stick to Jung, and identify with being Ti dom, followed by more Ni inclined ISTP (MBTI) rather than Se.

Also:



> Mr. or Mrs. down-to-earth, who takes a dry and simple attitude towards everything, deflating all excitement and elevated emotions and sentiments.


Being coined as 'likely Si' dom goes against anything I've read about it by Jung. Si inherently is a subjective perceiving function; it won't ever deflate everything to completely nothingness and/or create a void. It can't, for it would render itself useless as a perceiving function.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Erbse said:


> I don't care for socionics, and not too much for MBTI either anymore.
> 
> I stick to Jung, and identify with being Ti dom, followed by more Ni inclined ISTP (MBTI) rather than Se.
> 
> ...


Si does deflate in order to focus, the same applies for Ni (and any introverted function), in order to focus "creating order" and understanding. A lot of data as to be discarded, in contrast, Se is expansive and accurate, but without an introverted judging function sorting the facts, its quite useless.


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> How are the socionics functions radically different from the MBTI ones then? How is Se radically different in MBTI (or the other functions for that matter)?
> 
> Just post what credible links really prove their massive difference?


Perhaps I should've been more clear. I was referring to type. 
ISTP is Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Te-Si-Ne-Fi, 
ISTp (SLI) is Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se-Ti-Ne-Fi

Now once again. Please don't post Socionics stuff in a MBTI forum. It doesn't belong here.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Crafter79 said:


> Perhaps I should've been more clear. I was referring to type.
> ISTP is Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Te-Si-Ne-Fi,
> ISTp (SLI) is Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se-Ti-Ne-Fi
> 
> Now once again. Please don't post Socionics stuff in a MBTI forum. It doesn't belong here.


That is because in socionics, the little "j" is targeted at the dominant function, thus if the dominant function is introverted and a judging one. You are regarded as a judger, which is actually more in line with Jung compared to MBTI which ruined it by focusing on the extroverted functions. 

Thus MBTI:ISTP, Ti Se Ni Fe, translates as LSI (ISTj) in socionics where the functions the same with the difference being in presentation. Socionics states the shadow functions, which I underline in red for your most likely type "ISTj". 

*EGO: Ti, Se 
SUPER EGO: Fi, Ne
SUPER ID: Fe, Ni
**ID:Te, Si*


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

What part of "don't post Socionics stuff in a MBTI forum. It doesn't belong here." don't you understand? They are two different theories. This forum is based from MBTI. If you can't respect that then GTFO.


----------



## ohtochooseaname (May 17, 2012)

What the ordering even means in Socionics is different from MBTI. Even though they are different, there tends to be a correlation between the two in that IST's tend to be IST's, however, what J and P mean is very different from j and p.

I, personally, am closer to an ISTp than an ISTj.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Crafter79 said:


> What part of "don't post Socionics stuff in a MBTI forum. It doesn't belong here." don't you understand? They are two different theories. This forum is based from MBTI. If you can't respect that then GTFO.


I'm an intuitive, I have no respect for what ever kind of authority that is put. Have you been reading enough about other types? But socionics does predict that "pragmatists" xSTx can have issues with "researchers" xNTx, due to different perceptions (sensing/intuition) driving the logic.


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

I have plenty of xNTx friends but let me just give you a proper clear response.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> I'm an intuitive, I have no respect for what ever kind of authority that is put. Have you been reading enough about other types? But socionics does predict that "pragmatists" xSTx can have issues with "researchers" xNTx, due to different perceptions (sensing/intuition) driving the logic.


Ha, that's a first.

N now isn't synonymous for intelligence, but also rebellion and badassery.

You see, you're posting in a section full of individualists, who happens to not care a whole lot about your research, nor socionics. Not even MBTI necessarily.

I for one talk functions, the systems are useless and at best an entry point.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Erbse said:


> Ha, that's a first.
> 
> N now isn't synonymous for intelligence, but also rebellion and badassery.


That is because intuitionist aren't in touch with reality as it is, but a higher substitute of it. Strange but true.


----------



## ohtochooseaname (May 17, 2012)

Crafter79 said:


> What part of "don't post Socionics stuff in a MBTI forum. It doesn't belong here." don't you understand? They are two different theories. This forum is based from MBTI. If you can't respect that then GTFO.


In point of fact, he did relate it to MBTI by requesting a correlation. In the sense that the two may have some type of relationship, it is relevant. Even a discussion of a lack of relationship is relevant.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> That is because intuitionist aren't in touch with reality as it is, but a higher substitute of it. Strange but true.


I know.

I'm an NT after all, disguising as ST. Don't tell, though.


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

ohtochooseaname said:


> In point of fact, he did relate it to MBTI by requesting a correlation. In the sense that the two may have some type of relationship, it is relevant. Even a discussion of a lack of relationship is relevant.


Oh by all means continue to feed the trolls.


----------



## ohtochooseaname (May 17, 2012)

Crafter79 said:


> Oh by all means continue to feed the trolls.


'Tis a specialty of mine.


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

nom nom nom


----------



## Vtile (Feb 27, 2011)

Trolls are kind of furry and make funny noises so ISTPs should naturally love em, right?


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

Naw they're just too ugly.. kinda stink too.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Crafter79 said:


> I have plenty of xNTx friends but let me just give you a proper clear response.
> View attachment 47293


*INTUITIVE VISION MODE ON:*
_I smell inferiority complex, hidden in the empty box symbolising that very true fact, demonstrated even more so by the desire to use the NT connection as a shield. But wait there is more...

You are exactly the police man type person listed by socionics. Good intuition is in those who can read this.  _


----------



## Crafter79 (Jul 15, 2011)

no that's just ISTP telling you to go fuck yourself. But feel free to analyze it all you want.


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

@Boolean11:
I pretty much agree with @Erbse and @Crafter79, but I'll give you some comments to explain part of my rationale to completely ignore Socionics:
*ISTp*


*The quiet individualist* who marches to his or her own drumbeat, cultivating eccentric, yet enjoyable interests and pretty much ignoring everything else.
*Mr. or Mrs. down-to-earth*, who takes a dry and simple attitude towards everything, deflating all excitement and elevated emotions and sentiments.
*ISTj
*


*The policeman* or *referee* who keeps a sharp eye on how well people are adhering to the rules and takes it upon himself to correct or punish deviants.
*The career bureaucrat* or *administrator* who rises through the ranks of traditional administrative structures (government organs, large corporations, and other large, hierarchical structures), carefully performing his duties and winning in the long run.
*The rational artist* who sees music, film, or visual art as a language to be deciphered.
*The cult devotee* who is swayed by the rhetoric of visionaries, and becomes devoted to executing their plans.
*The logistics analyst* who rigorously but realistically devises the optimal operating procedure for any given task.

I disagree with the text in red. I completely disagree with the notion that an ISTP would be likely to become a policeman with a motive to make others obey laws, and I completely disagree with the idea of an ISTP becoming a bureaucrat. ISTPs make bad cult devotees too, and from what I've seen, we're not usually patient enough to naturally want to optimize step-by-step procedures, even if we're pretty good at it when we choose to go against our nature.
Also, to comment on the rest of the Socionics bit, we're not overly likely to wear mustaches, have an owlish inability to turn our heads without turning the rest of our bodies or obey any other caricature of a description that our good Russian friends have used against us.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

zynthaxx said:


> @_Boolean11_:
> I pretty much agree with @_Erbse_ and @_Crafter79_, but I'll give you some comments to explain part of my rationale to completely ignore Socionics:
> *ISTp*
> 
> ...


So do you fit more so towards "ISTj", as the logistics analyst, social role you see your self having? I understand the point the point of people rejecting the whole theory, though as more of a personal choice (Generally this pseudo science ends with individuals deciding for themselves in accordance with their weltanschauung). I haven't seen a good argument against socionics that doesn't stem more so from misunderstanding it.


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

To boolean11, perhaps google "lytovs intro 3". Halfway down the page, they have a few socionists read 16 MBTI type descriptions. Generally they found that ISTP corresponds with SLI. I generally agree with everything Model A has to say about SLIs. 

Not to offend anybody else reading this: from socionics perspectives, a certain opinion goes around that MBTI has the functions of the introvert types completely wrong. You might wish to come to your own conclusions. Using socionic function descriptions, I'd agree that I value Si, Te, Ne, and Fi.

Some might be of the opinion that ISTP descriptions overemphasize daredevilry. Certain enneagram 8 ISTPs might identify as socionics extroverts like SLE or LIE.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

esq said:


> To boolean11, perhaps google "lytovs intro 3". Halfway down the page, they have a few socionists read 16 MBTI type descriptions. Generally they found that ISTP corresponds with SLI. I generally agree with everything Model A has to say about SLIs.
> 
> Not to offend anybody else reading this: from socionics perspectives, a certain opinion goes around that MBTI has the functions of the introvert types completely wrong. You might wish to come to your own conclusions. Using socionic function descriptions, I'd agree that I value Si, Te, Ne, and Fi.
> 
> Some might be of the opinion that ISTP descriptions overemphasize daredevilry. Certain enneagram 8 ISTPs might identify as socionics extroverts like SLE or LIE.


Read it doesn't drift too far from the wikia (Wikisocion), which I think is the best. I totally agree with you on MBTI lacking, I mean this page (Portrait of an ISTP) could equally apply to my father who is an MBTI:ISTJ too going by the functions more so. He seems to get lost his own little pursuits and bulldozes things when he can't really get his own way.

MBTI:ISTJ translates to mindless traditionalist which makes it really hard to swallow for most people.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> MBTI:ISTJ translates to mindless


Where did you get that idea?



> traditionalist which makes it really hard to swallow for most people.


And what do you find so hard to swallow about valuing things you have experienced?


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> So do you fit more so towards "ISTj", as the logistics analyst, social role you see your self having? I understand the point the point of people rejecting the whole theory, though as more of a personal choice (Generally this pseudo science ends with individuals deciding for themselves in accordance with their weltanschauung). I haven't seen a good argument against socionics that doesn't stem more so from misunderstanding it.


My argument against socionics is that it makes such specific claims that it's easily refuted. If you work with an MBTI-like understanding of cognitive functions and attitudes, you get a model of the mind which might not be entirely correct, but is good enough to explain the differences and motives of people, and what problems and benefits they may experience by interacting with each other.
Again, Socionics make very specific claims which puts it in a similar category as astrology and divination in my opinion. Unless you happen to fall right into one of the stereotypical descriptions, you simply don't see how it applies to you, and then it actually is worthless for its intended purpose.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

alionsroar said:


> Where did you get that idea?
> 
> 
> 
> And what do you find so hard to swallow about valuing things you have experienced?


Because I just don't, I always value new experiences, from seeking hidden novelties doing things slightly differently whenever I can. Being an intuitive as I now realise, I don't really live life to the fullest, but I rather look for the hidden and what is not obvious about anything. 

But again who wants to be labelled as a sheep like traditionalist upholding the old way of doing things? Maybe that is for america where people are ultra conservative but in the more civilised world (joke obviously) people are a lot more about being free and doing your own stuff (nobody really cares about what you believe in, it seems like there are rarely any religious folks here).


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

zynthaxx said:


> My argument against socionics is that it makes such specific claims that it's easily refuted. If you work with an MBTI-like understanding of cognitive functions and attitudes, you get a model of the mind which might not be entirely correct, but is good enough to explain the differences and motives of people, and what problems and benefits they may experience by interacting with each other.
> Again, Socionics make very specific claims which puts it in a similar category as astrology and divination in my opinion. Unless you happen to fall right into one of the stereotypical descriptions, you simply don't see how it applies to you, and then it actually is worthless for its intended purpose.


Are you coming from "socionics.com" that site is shit? This site is better and somewhat more refined Wikisocion .

The visual typing stuff is actually nonsense that was added by some clown reseacher. But that does nothing to discredit the core of it. Out of interest how are the MBTI ISTP functions radically different from the ISTj ones. I'm just really interested in find out what I perceive as people misconception since I used to have them in the early days when I started looking at the theory.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> Because I just don't, I always value new experiences, from seeking hidden novelties doing things slightly differently whenever I can. Being an intuitive as I now realise, I don't really live life to the fullest, but I rather look for the hidden and what is not obvious about anything.
> 
> But again who wants to be labelled as a sheep like traditionalist upholding the old way of doing things? Maybe that is for america where people are ultra conservative but in the more civilised world (joke obviously) people are a lot more about being free and doing your own stuff (nobody really cares about what you believe in, it seems like there are rarely any religious folks here).


I don't see upholding traditions as necessarily any more 'sheeplike' or mindless than going with new trends if a person has put thought into whether those traditions/current trends are good or not.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

alionsroar said:


> I don't see upholding traditions as necessarily any more 'sheeplike' or mindless than going with new trends if a person has put thought into whether those traditions/current trends are good or not.


Of course with reason inserted its obvious that it doesn't make sense to cast the world in black and white, but for some reason others may shy away from a "perceived" stereotype.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> Of course with reason inserted its obvious that it doesn't make sense to cast the world in black and white, but for some reason others may shy away from a "perceived" stereotype.


Perhaps, but it's also possible the person does not hold that stereotype/misinformation of ISTJs being mindless and still considers themselves not an ISTJ.

My objection was to your statements that ISTJs are mindless, and people going with tradition don't think for themselves as both those things seemed false and I thought you were saying they were true statements. In order for me to see them as true, all ISTJs would need to be mindless, but I get the idea that some people don't need those details.



Boolean11 said:


> _You are exactly the police man type person listed by socionics. Good intuition is in those who can read this. _


Oh hey, I just saw this text. But I don't think it was due to any intuition in me, I just had the laptop monitor at an angle which showed the white writing which I noticed via my senses.

Hey, maybe I am playing *The office introvert* role well.

Or just being an ass. Either way is fine tonight.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> Out of interest how are the MBTI ISTP functions radically different from the ISTj ones. I'm just really interested in find out what I perceive as people misconception since I used to have them in the early days when I started looking at the theory.


As MBTI ISTP I can tell you that this:



> The policeman or referee who keeps a sharp eye on how well people are adhering to the rules and takes it upon himself to correct or punish deviants.
> The career bureaucrat or administrator who rises through the ranks of traditional administrative structures (government organs, large corporations, and other large, hierarchical structures), carefully performing his duties and winning in the long run.
> The rational artist who sees music, film, or visual art as a language to be deciphered.
> The cult devotee who is swayed by the rhetoric of visionaries, and becomes devoted to executing their plans.
> The logistics analyst who rigorously but realistically devises the optimal operating procedure for any given task.


is completely off and quite ridiculous to any ISTP, or Ti dom for that matter. Law, order and structure is Te realm, more than anything else.

If my functions make me an ISTj in socionics, I'll tell you the very same, as ISTj that is.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Erbse said:


> As MBTI ISTP I can tell you that this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In socionics "Se" is seen as the agressive pushy function, not "Te", that what I've began to see as the major interpretation differences between the two systems. Whilst in contrast, "Si", is seen as the focused secluded function as its bearers are unlikely to be pushy with people but be mroe so interested in their own little focused pursuits hence ISTp are "the quite individualists". 

In socionics Ti and Te are nothing more than evaluation functions, which is something more in line with Carl Jung himself than MBTI. Evaluation functions are regarded as rational as they are straight and raw, deciding on what ever perception data they may have.


> *The quiet individualist* who marches to his or her own drumbeat, cultivating eccentric, yet enjoyable interests and pretty much ignoring everything else.





> *Si vs. Ni: a focus on one's environment and how it's affecting one's physical state vs. a focus on a situation's development over time and other underlying meanings
> 
> Se vs. Ne: active acquisition, control, and organization of visible territory and objects vs. active search for and development of invisible potential and emerging situations
> 
> ...


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

alionsroar said:


> Perhaps, but it's also possible the person does not hold that stereotype/misinformation of ISTJs being mindless and still considers themselves not an ISTJ.
> 
> My objection was to your statements that ISTJs are mindless, and people going with tradition don't think for themselves as both those things seemed false and I thought you were saying they were true statements. In order for me to see them as true, all ISTJs would need to be mindless, but I get the idea that some people don't need those details.


I guess this is a communication isssue, my statement just was justing listing the fact that ISTJs have the most unfavourible stereotype and thus the notion could easily form a psychological bias against the type.


----------

