# Is ISTP in MBTI and SLE in socionics possible? Or am I really ESTP in MBTI?



## Bluemint (Feb 12, 2014)

I relate to everything about SLE, except two aspects. 

Going after leadership roles: 
The few times I did lead, the results were amazing and I loved it, but I rarely let myself do that. 

This : ( Socionics Types: SLE-ESTp ) "They are attracted to individuals who they see as sharing the SLEs's own broad goals and beliefs, but who are more inclined towards reflection than action, and able to put the SLEs' own goals and actions in the context of a higher meaning and objective.":
Eww... I can figure things out for myself thank you, and I hate being told what my higher meaning and objective is. Doing stuff with people who are more action-oriented is more fun. Truth is though, I really do like conversations with more reflective people, very enlightening, but that's often because their views differ from mine. Every once in a very long while when things blow up so badly that I have few other alternatives, I do consult with ones I trust.

I relate only to some stuff about the SLI and LSI, and those are all described in SLE.

I relate to most of MBTI ESTP descriptions, except the overly impulsive and extroverted aspects.
I relate to most of MBTI ISTP descriptions, but I can loose patience with 'figuring out how it works' if it takes a long time. However, my baby stories before I learned to talk are all about concentrating on something I was doing, like stacking cups, for an endless amount of time.

I inhibit myself in front of others to the point that most people would type me MBTI INTJ, but the few times I've let myself loose in front of others were so awesome  
I was a lot looser when I was little, but abuse at home (I was the biggest problem child in my family and refused to succumb in any way to my parents, so I got quite a lot of that) taught me that it was better if others did not see my personality. I guess subconsciously I just wanted a place to succeed somewhere, and that place was school, where I was at the top of my class academically without trying. Socially too, while I had a few bullying episodes, I managed to overcome them, always had friends, a few admirers and was considered self-confident (what people have told me). 

Are my inhibitions due primarily to my nature or nurture? I also need lots of personal space and time alone to recharge between social interactions, though I always have more energy right after stimulating social interactions.

So what am I?

Also, when using the four letter code for socionics, please type j/p in lower case.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

have you looked into cognitive styles? 
each ST types has a different style of thinking, if you can figure yours out that will pinpoint your type: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/127992-forms-thinking.html


----------



## AST (Oct 1, 2013)

LSI by nature, Se suppressed by nurture.


----------



## Bluemint (Feb 12, 2014)

Thanks. I'll need time to figure out my cognitive style. Offhand, HP or CD (which doesn't help my problem). My Se is not suppressed in any way, I just don't show it to other people. What I really want to know is 
1- if I'm an extrovert or an introvert according to MBTI. 
2- since there are several differences between MBTI and Socionics (function order and definition of j/p), it seems like they are separate systems. For their source, I'm inclined to say that MBTI is an explanation with more details of Jung, staying in behaviors, while Socionics is an off-shoot/tangent of some of Jung's ideas, going off into inner processes. I'm wondering if E/I would differ as well. I'm asking because I don't yet understand Socionics' explanation of E/I.
I relate so strongly to SLE that if in fact E/I means the same thing, I'd faster retype my MBTI.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluemint said:


> Thanks. I'll need time to figure out my cognitive style. Offhand, HP or CD (which doesn't help my problem). My Se is not suppressed in any way, I just don't show it to other people. What I really want to know is
> 1- if I'm an extrovert or an introvert according to MBTI.
> 2- since there are several differences between MBTI and Socionics (function order and definition of j/p), it seems like they are separate systems. For their source, I'm inclined to say that MBTI is an explanation with more details of Jung, staying in behaviors, while Socionics is an off-shoot/tangent of some of Jung's ideas, going off into inner processes. I'm wondering if E/I would differ as well. I'm asking because I don't yet understand Socionics' explanation of E/I.
> I relate so strongly to SLE that if in fact E/I means the same thing, I'd faster retype my MBTI.


That eliminates SLI at least. As for the rest, I really don't think that a forum full of strangers will be helpful to you in figuring out all those things about yourself. May be ask your friends and family members instead? People who actually know you in real life? Provide them with these type descriptions and ask them to give you some feedback about yourself.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Bluemint said:


> Thanks. I'll need time to figure out my cognitive style. Offhand, HP or CD (which doesn't help my problem). My Se is not suppressed in any way, I just don't show it to other people. What I really want to know is
> 1- if I'm an extrovert or an introvert according to MBTI.
> 2- since there are several differences between MBTI and Socionics (function order and definition of j/p), it seems like they are separate systems. For their source, I'm inclined to say that MBTI is an explanation with more details of Jung, staying in behaviors, while Socionics is an off-shoot/tangent of some of Jung's ideas, going off into inner processes. I'm wondering if E/I would differ as well. I'm asking because I don't yet understand Socionics' explanation of E/I.
> I relate so strongly to SLE that if in fact E/I means the same thing, I'd faster retype my MBTI.


I can't really speak for the dichotomies, since I do not bother with them in either theory. However, when looking at the functions and IM elements, MBTI's functions are differentiated based on Internal/External (do you look at what is happening within yourself or prioritize information from the world around you?). In Socionics, it's about objects vs fields. Extroverted IM elements focus on an object (what it's doing; how it's feeling; what its potential is, etc). Introverted IM elements focus on the connections between objects (do these objects belong together based on similar characteristics; what sentiments exist between these objects; how did/might this event develop into another, etc). As someone who does not try to make the two theories fit together, I'd say just go with what works best in each system. If that means you end up SLE in one and ISTP in the other, it's not the end of the world. Also, if you want to know whether you're introverted or extroverted in MBTI, you should probably check that subforum.


----------



## Bluemint (Feb 12, 2014)

Which subforum? Can you post the link?
Anyway, thanks, that really clarified Socionics vs. MBTI E/I a lot. Based on that, I'm even more certain I'm SLE. Could you also please clarify each IM element based on your explanation of E/I, and also j/p? Yours is the first explanation on Socionics that I actually understand well


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Bluemint said:


> Which subforum? Can you post the link?


Personality Type Forums Try the Myers Briggs or Cognitive Functions subforums for more on the E/I dichotomy. Myers Briggs might be your best bet.



> Anyway, thanks, that really clarified Socionics vs. MBTI E/I a lot. Based on that, I'm even more certain I'm SLE. Could you also please clarify each IM element based on your explanation of E/I, and also j/p? Yours is the first explanation on Socionics that I actually understand well


You're welcome. Happy that I could help. I can do a rundown for you later, though it'll probably be either tonight or tomorrow; this is my long day at school.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Imagine if some person wrote a theory of cars. (Car-Jung)

Then some other guy read that theory and made a system out of it. (Car-mbti)
Then a second guy reads the same theory and makes another system. (Car-socionics)

They are very similar except for some small semantic differences.

You are pegged as having a BMW in one system and ask the very pertinent question.
Do I have a BMW in the other system automatically?
Well hmmm... What to answer??? :dry:


----------



## Bluemint (Feb 12, 2014)

No, because BMW isn't discussed in the other system.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Bluemint said:


> No, because BMW isn't discussed in the other system.


Thank you for illustrating you fragile grasp of reality,
it is nice to know that you live in a magical world where the word is the main determinant of that is real.
Would be sad if *words was only labels* for real things wouldn't it? :tongue:

Edit: 
For the record MBTI and Socionics discusses the excact same 16 types.
And since they can all be tracked back to the same 8 functions
in both systems they are talking about the same thing.
Even if MBTI has a very simpleminded and fancyful take on it.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

hornet said:


> Thank you for illustrating you fragile grasp of reality,
> it is nice to know that you live in a magical world where the word is the main determinant of that is real.
> Would be sad if *words was only labels* for real things wouldn't it? :tongue:
> 
> ...


Wow. As someone who has managed to be pretty stubborn and confrontational concerning her views, even I haven't typically gotten this rude. Not sure if that's impressive on your part or merely embarrassing.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kanerou said:


> Wow. As someone who has managed to be pretty stubborn and confrontational concerning her views, even I haven't typically gotten this rude. Not sure if that's impressive on your part or merely embarrassing.


Oh the horror...
Rudeness....
Let us all flee back to civilication and it's comforting stale narrative.
I don't care if it is impressive or embarrassing based on whatever cultural standard you hold as a guiding light.
I'm deep down angry and sometimes that leads me to be a bit nasty to people I find in the wrong.
No apology nor regret intendend if you somehow fished for that.
If you wish to attack the problem from a constructive angle you are welcome to frequent the thread 
on this exact topic in the enneagram forum. :tongue: 

http://personalitycafe.com/type-9-f...ing-people-online-slowly-vent-your-anger.html

Notice that I made it before your response. :wink:


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

hornet said:


> Oh the horror...
> Rudeness....
> Let us all flee back to civilication and it's comforting stale narrative.
> I don't care if it is impressive or embarrassing based on whatever cultural standard you hold as a guiding light.
> ...


Wow. (It bears saying again.)



> If you wish to attack the problem from a constructive angle you are welcome to frequent the thread
> on this exact topic in the enneagram forum. :tongue:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/type-9-f...ing-people-online-slowly-vent-your-anger.html
> ...


From your response here, it doesn't sound like you have any particular wish to engage the problem in a constructive manner yourself, so there's really no point. I'll find less toxic people to converse with and attempt to forget that you exist unless absolutely necessary.

Edit: It sounds like your words are an attempt as characterizing me as Fe in MBTI, though I could be wrong. Does it not occur to you that these could simply be my personal values instead of presenting yourself as the persecuted victim of civilized society?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kanerou said:


> Wow. (It bears saying again.)
> 
> From your response here, it doesn't sound like you have any particular wish to engage the problem in a constructive manner yourself, so there's really no point. I'll find less toxic people to converse with and attempt to forget that you exist unless absolutely necessary.
> 
> Edit: It sounds like your words are an attempt as characterizing me as Fe in MBTI, though I could be wrong. Does it not occur to you that these could simply be my personal values instead of presenting yourself as the persecuted victim of civilized society?


I absolutely love...


> I'll find less toxic people to converse with and attempt to forget that you exist unless absolutely necessary.


But then you give me a bunch of questions like you want to continue anyway.
I don't care if you decieve yourself 

Btw you started this convo between me and you, 
you trying to draw the "privilege of conversing" back, as some sort of punishment comes off a bit weak and weird.

I really don't care what process you use to construct your morals and etichs.
So no I didn't really try to imply that you used anything.
I pointed out how your stab at my shame or vanity didn't work. 
If you feel me pointing that out, makes you Fe that is your predicative.
You can use the word cultural influence without implying Fe you know.
Fe types are not the only types who culture touches. xD

If I where to type you I would wonder if you where some Si type like INFP/ISTJ maybe.
Since you seem to be so touchy about rudeness, and vocal about it.
That would really be a huge leap without backing, maybe some other factor makes you touchy.
Whatever it is that makes you *so prone to jump out of the hedge to defend civility*
it is really not welcomed in my part of the court. :dry:


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

hornet said:


> I absolutely love...
> But then you give me a bunch of questions like you want to continue anyway.
> I don't care if you decieve yourself


It is simply something that I thought of after composing my post. No need to assume motives here. As for the rest, your remark on Fe is acknowledged, and I will ignore the rest and keep to my word concerning ignoring you, as there's no need to further correct your misconceptions about me. Unless you repeat this behavior with someone else, in which case I have no problems calling you out on your shit again.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kanerou said:


> It is simply something that I thought of after composing my post. No need to assume motives here. As for the rest, your remark on Fe is acknowledged, and I will ignore the rest and keep to my word concerning ignoring you, as there's no need to further correct your misconceptions about me. Unless you repeat this behavior with someone else, in which case I have no problems calling you out on your shit again.


That kind of threat is almost like begging to get ignorelisted.
I don't care to have some *self appointed moral guardian* hanging over me.
Request granted, ignorelist it is.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

I really enjoyed reading this thread. It's so cute when Fi dominants argue.

Like a lot of Te users, I am of the opinion that the types and functions must equate across systems or else it is wholly unrealistic.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Fried Eggz said:


> I really enjoyed reading this thread. It's so cute when Fi dominants argue.


I am Fi base, not necessarily Fi dom.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I am Fi base, not necessarily Fi dom.


But if you continue to read the post you'll see that the OP assumes a correlation between Fi base and dom, hence you'd be an Fi dom.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> But if you continue to read the post you'll see that the OP assumes a correlation between Fi base and dom, hence you'd be an Fi dom.


You're assuming I didn't. He may, but I do not, so I corrected him.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> You're assuming I didn't. He may, but I do not, so I corrected him.


Yes, but from the POV of that post claiming you were Fi dom wasn't an incorrect statement to make. Just that you don't agree with that systematic approach but that's different.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, but from the POV of that post claiming you were Fi dom wasn't an incorrect statement to make. Just that you don't agree with that systematic approach but that's different.


You're not going to convince me on this, you know, and it is just further derailing Bluemint's thread.


----------



## Bluemint (Feb 12, 2014)

hornet said:


> Edit:
> For the record MBTI and Socionics discusses the excact same 16 types.
> And since they can all be tracked back to the same 8 functions
> in both systems they are talking about the same thing.
> *Even if MBTI has a very simpleminded and fancyful take on it*.


Basically, you only agree with MBTI where it matches with Socionics. That's why you think they're the same thing. Some people look at the parts you consider simpleminded and fanciful as a valid part of MBTI theory. With those parts, MBTI doesn't match Socionics. While both based on the same things, MBTI's interpretation of Jung, the eight functions and hence the 16 types is different than Socionics'. Anyway, this is debated in many other threads, we can both look there  

Disclaimer, I don't yet totally get Socionics. Kaneirou said she'd help me with that. (Thanx!!) 

I'm basing my question with my opinion that they are different, and therefore, it's possible to be one thing in one and a different thing in another. However, because there are many similarities, it would usually be the same. Anyway, I'm starting to lean toward ESTP in MBTI. I guess that would further validate your take on it


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Bluemint said:


> Basically, you only agree with MBTI where it matches with Socionics. That's why you think they're the same thing. Some people look at the parts you consider simpleminded and fanciful as a valid part of MBTI theory. With those parts, MBTI doesn't match Socionics. While both based on the same things, MBTI's interpretation of Jung, the eight functions and hence the 16 types is different than Socionics'. Anyway, this is debated in many other threads, we can both look there
> 
> Disclaimer, I don't yet totally get Socionics. Kaneirou said she'd help me with that. (Thanx!!)
> 
> I'm basing my question with my opinion that they are different, and therefore, it's possible to be one thing in one and a different thing in another. However, because there are many similarities, it would usually be the same. Anyway, I'm starting to lean toward ESTP in MBTI. I guess that would further validate your take on it


Finally a voice that manages to say what I wanted to say easily.
@Fried Eggz


> Like a lot of Te users, I am of the opinion that the types and functions must equate across systems or else it is wholly unrealistic.


To me that is the whole point here. It stands for me totally unreasonable that the two systems based
on Jungs functions and types should somehow describe totally different things.
If they do then one or both of them are wrong. Period.
And if any of them are wrong then I would point to MBTI as the best candidate.
It is the one who has been subjected the longest to the collective forces of stereotype.
Popular culture has a way to distorting things.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> You're not going to convince me on this, you know, and it is just further derailing Bluemint's thread.


I know you don't agree in the first place but I think you nitpicked on something that frankly didn't need to be nitpicked since there was no inconsistency in the thinking from his end.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> I know you don't agree in the first place but I think you nitpicked on something that frankly didn't need to be nitpicked since there was no inconsistency in the thinking from his end.


Because it contradicted both my views concerning the theories and my own experience in applying MBTI's functions to myself, so I would not sit by and validate it with my silence.

See, we're still at an impasse. That's why I said we should move on.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@Bluemint, here is the first batch. If Se is not clear enough, let me know, and I'll link you to other descriptions. I didn't include Rational/Irrational since as I said, I don't really think in those terms and therefore may not be able to explain it best. I'll let you know if I come across something useful in that regard.

Fe: Emotional Ethics. Internal processes of the object, how the object feels at the moment. Fe is able to take external indicators such as facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, etc, and determine how the object is feeling. If that mood doesn’t fit with their ideal, the Fe ego will try and change that. To this end, they also try to determine the feelings or motivations behind actions and emotions; if they know the cause, they can try and change it to adjust the emotional state.

Fi: Relational Ethics. Fi focuses on the emotional connections between people and object, ideas, or other people. Things like like and dislike, attraction and repulsion, are its territory. It tends to know what it likes and dislikes and lives according to these internal leanings. At the same time, how others feel about things is also quite important to it. It can choose to cater to these sentiments, should they come into conflict, or to ignore others’ sentiments altogether, depending on the Fi user’s own internal values or their relationship to the person. The sentiments it develops are typically stable, changing not easily or not at all.

Se: Volitional Sensing. (It would be considered the external content of the object, but this rather breaks down considering how it is defined.) Se looks to make an impact. It has a desire, a goal that it wants to make happen, so it pushes and pulls, moving things and people (even themselves) to reach that goal. It is willful and assertive, and unafraid of confrontation. It pays attention to who holds the power, how far that ownership reaches (territory), and it challenges others to gain or retain these things.

Si: Sensational Sensing. Si pays attention to the physiological connections between objects - that is, the physical effects of an object upon itself or others. They prefer to be in a state of comfort and balance (“homeostasis”, as some put it), and if something disrupts that, they will take action to change it. That could be turning the heater up or grabbing a blanket if the room is too cold, or perhaps eating because they feel hungry or weak. Si-egos not only care for themselves in this manner but like to do the same for others, making sure they are also comfortable.


----------



## Bluemint (Feb 12, 2014)

OK thanks! WOW! Yes, that was very clear, even Se. Thank you so much!


----------

