# Reconciling mbti and Socionics.



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

This is my attempt to reconcile mbti and Socionics. The confusion is just too much for me to bear any longer. 

First I'll look at the history of mbti. 

_The test’s origins are somewhat interesting. The story goes that one Christmas vacation, Isabel Briggs brought home a boyfriend, Clarence Myers, to meet the family. Though Isabel's parents liked the young man her mother Katherine noted that he was different to the family.* Katherine became interested in the idea of categorizing people according to personality type, and through reading autobiographies developed a basic typology of 'meditative types', 'spontaneous types', 'executive types' and 'sociable types'. *She discovered Carl Jung's book Personality Types and it became the theoretical foundation for a lifetime's work, later taken up by her daughter (who became Isabel Briggs Myers).
_

Isabel Briggs Myers - Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type | Review and summary | Tom Butler-Bowdon

So basically, Myers Briggs approached typology with an understanding of character traits, and not the functions. 


The history of Socionics goes like this. 


Socionics was developed in the 1970s and '80s, primarily by the Lithuanian researcher Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, an economist, sociologist, and dean of the Vilnius Pedagogical University's department of family science.[2] The name "socionics" is derived from the word "society", because Augustinavičiūtė believed that each personality type has a distinct purpose in society, which can be described and explained by socionics.[3]

The central idea of socionics is that information is intuitively divisible into eight categories, called information aspects or information elements, which a person's psyche processes using eight psychological functions. 

Socionics

So Ausra came at it from a functional/ information elements perspective. 



Ok, with me so far?
Myers Briggs - character based. 
Ausra - function based. 

Which would make sense, since Myers Briggs was a feeler, so her focus would be on the personal, while Ausra was a thinker. So she would be more likely to focus more on the mathematical functional aspect of typology. 


So if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Ausra getting it right when it came to ordering the functions. 


When you ignore the functions and just look at the type descriptions in both systems, LSI, ISTj (the inspector) looks more like istj (the inspector) , SEI ISFp, (the artist ) looks more like isfp, ( the artist ) and so on....

And when you take into consideration the fact that they used mbti terminology (istj, isfp) to label the types in the first place ( LSI, SEI ) in an effort to make it more accessible to mbti users, they must have meant they were describing the same persona, just using different language to do so. 

(Rick De Long - _What made me stick with socionics up till earlier this year was the conviction that, despite an increasing number of caveats, the "core" of relationships was still determined by socionics. This conviction was based mostly upon my experience of a set of very meaningful relationships in my own life, which I attempted to extrapolate — carefully — to those of other people. This summer and fall, I realized that I could have been wrong about one of those key relationships. I had always typed this friend as SLI despite her self-typings of alternately IEE and ILE. Then a friend got to know this person as well and disagreed strongly with my SLI typing (which already didn't matter as much to me anymore). As I looked at things through his eyes and saw a fairly convincing case for another type, I could feel it was time to leave socionics behind.)
_

http://socionist.blogspot.ie/2013/01/why-this-blog-is-now-called-ex-socionist.html

I wouldn't put much stock into what Rick De Long thinks, if he can't even recognise duality or the lack thereof. 


So both systems are attempting to explain reality. They were developed independently from each other, based on observations of people who exist in the real world. And in my opinion, they both do a good job in capturing the essence of these archetypes we see in the real world. Irregardless of people's opinions, there exists in objective reality only one truth about who these archetypes are and how they function. 


One of the biggest differences between Socionics and MBTI is the infamous J/P swap. In the process of developing MBTI, Myers changed one of the four Jungian dichotomies, making translation from Socionics over to MBTI difficult. While there are other important differences between the two theories, many type enthusiasts want to know which Jungian functional breakdown fits with which type. 

Well, if you look closely, you'll notice that it is Myers who disagreed with Jung, not anyone on the Socionics side. So if we assume that Jung was right, then Socionics is more accurate than MBTI. The question then is, do we have reason to believe that Jung was wrong? I see no reason why Isabel Myers would have the experience to overturn Jung's insights. I would trust a man who spent his entire life studying people as a psychotherapist over a newly-minted PhD. But the only real way to know is to see how it plays out in reality. 



So when considering switching between systems, it's best to ignore the function order in mbti, and not assume ISTJ = ISTp. Since when we hold mbti "Si" up to the light and compare it to Socionics "Si", we can see they are two very different things. And so should not be equated.

The type descriptions on the other hand, although not exactly the same, are an attempt to describe the same persona. It could be argued that two Socionics descriptions wont be exactly the same either, because of the bias of the person writing the description, but they are both attempting to describe the same persona. An ISTj will look slightly different depending on who's describing them, and what their biases are. 

MBTI is simpler in it's approach and uses the dichotomies of N S T F to determine someones type. Which is good for getting a quick read on someone. The emphasis in mbti is on the characters/ archetypes/personas being described, not the functions as I have already said. So it would be a mistake to take the function order literally to mean you can swap between systems by equating mbti Si with Socionics Si and say that ISTj = ISTP. 

People who are interested in knowing the truth, and seriously consider both systems, pick Socionics over MBTI. I know many people who started with MBTI, then switched to Socionics. I'm still looking for people who started with Socionics, then switched to MBTI. 


So to sum up. When switching between systems, be aware of the origins of mbti, and that it was noticing the archetypes in literature, who kept repeating through the ages, that started Katherine Briggs on her journey of typology. Cognitive functions were not her or her daughters strength. Socionics stayed true to Jungs interpretations of the functions, and expanded on them. And when ordering the functions, stayed true to how Jung stated they are ordered. So keep these facts in mind when switching.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

If you're saying an ISFP by the four dimensions of personality considered by Myers doesn't have to look like an Fi-dom at all, I'm with you totally. 

What socionics did right in my view when it comes to dichotomies is it made a lot more observations on how a type looks dichotomy-wise. 

Using the four Jungian dimensions of irrational/rational, thinking/feeling, etc in a dichotomous fashion naively (namely, by attributing certain fixed concrete measures of what these are) sort of ignores the fact that types develop, are abstract, and the emphasis cognitively is not a stable entity (and perhaps much more importantly, nor is how the emphasis manifests in a more practical sense necessarily something you can really standardize, the way they do in the tests), hence the answers to questions aiming to pick apart N/S etc might not really get at what cognitive type is. 

The way people seem to be approaching personality research to gather MBTI type data on that front is to look for what creates a sort of "stable" notion of type based on statistics, but they're achieving this partly in my analysis by creating descriptions of the dimensions that don't really resemble much to do with the functions anymore on many fronts. 
For instance, it might not really change much, whether someone is developing intuition or sensation, whether they prefer "theory courses or fact courses". And even if they always "preferred" sensation to intuition but their relation to these functions morphs as they develop and move on from one phase to another of life, it might still not really change at all that they have that (non-cognitive) preference about courses. This suggests to me simply that what those dimensions are measuring might be close to unrelated to what even having a "preference" for sensing even could mean.

Socionics dichotomies try to get at the type structure from various angles, e.g. what happens when sensing is blocked with thinking v. feeling, or what combinations produce a process vs. result preference, etc, and the thing is these produce lots of angles with which to understand outward manifestations of the type structure, which itself is rather the inner cognitive workings. 
And in my view, this is probably a decent way to go if one is going to use dichotomies. 



That said, if you're going to say that you think a MBTI four-letter-code ISTP should always be an Si-dom or even an S-dom of some kind, not gonna agree there. That's going too far, and committing the same mistake, just differently.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

onion said:


> And when you take into consideration the fact that they used mbti terminology (istj, isfp) to label the types in the first place ( LSI, SEI ) in an effort to make it more accessible to mbti users, they must have meant they were describing the same persona, just using different language to do so.


Actually, _one_ socionist did that when attempting to introduce Socionics to the western world. Other socionists have stated that they're not the same and shouldn't be treated as such.
*


Socionics.us said:



What are the correct socionic type names?

Click to expand...

*


Socionics.us said:


> The correct full type names are "intuitive logical extravert," "sensing ethical introvert," and so forth. The proper abbreviations are, as in Russian, ILE, SEI, and so on (the abbreviation of the full type name). *Some people use names borrowed from the MBTI (ENTp, ISFp, etc.), but they are not technically correct and mislead readers into thinking the typologies are equivalent.*





Rick DeLong said:


> I see a tendency for people here and elsewhere to assume that these three systems are all about the same thing, and that with a little bit of effort, they can be rephrased to arrive at a "common system" that combines all of them. People are saying MBTT is "wrong" because it doesn't take into consideration some things that socionics does. Socionics descriptions are "wrong" because they stray from Jung. Etc. etc.
> 
> This is incorrect. The systems _appear _similar, but they are not the same. It is incorrect to say that MBTT descriptions are "not quite accurate," and that by "helping them out" with some socionics concepts, we will somehow improve their system. Or that by sticking to Jung's functional descriptions, we will "help out" socionics.
> 
> ...






> What do these signs mean—
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

The corresponding functions in each system are not absolute, so they can't be considered separate objects with existing boundaries in the first place. You can't say the object of estimation the two theories observe through corresponding jcf's is two different things.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

I really appreciate socionics for that reason. 16 cognitive functions should be the main elements, not 8 letters. 

I can already see in Myers-Briggs and CF subforum how it's getting so out of hand with threads such as "Hello, I'm INTJ, but I have surprisingly large amount of emotions", "Hey guys, even though I am ENFP, I do surprisingly good at maths", "Oh hai, I am INFP but my room is mostly really clean", "Hey guys, I am introvert, but I like to party" etc. etc.

Why the fuck is that necessary? When cognitive functions shift to main functions instead of 8 letters, we can sit down, define and ponder about cognitive functions, how they interact, how they are expressed, how they relate to the world, how they process information etc. instead of wasting time on "I am feeler. I can only feel feels and I am dumb as a ton of bricks when it comes to thinking. I think I have to make another stupid thread to waste everybody's valuable time and prove that _ergo cognito sum_"

In that manner, socionics is much more worth to bet your money stacks on. Socionics can currently explain 10% of human behavior in all it's complexity, while MBTI is stuck at 2-4%.

Now, since you can't prove socionics in objective manner, why should anyone pay attention? Well, that's because humans do fall under certain categories when it comes to processing/perceiving information, evaluating/making judgements, communication/expression styles and setting priotities in life. Even if it's not objective, knowing all of that at least in theory sets you to think in the right tracks, improves your understanding of why people have different motivations, and improves your observation skill and general understanding of human psychology.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

If something I've said needs clarifying, I'd be happy to clear up any misunderstandings.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

onion said:


> This is my attempt to reconcile mbti and Socionics. The confusion is just too much for me to bear any longer.
> 
> First I'll look at the history of mbti.
> 
> ...


If you are looking at the bolded statement to support this claim:



> Myers Briggs - character based.


Then I would look at the following line that I've highlighted in red text that shows that Jung's book became the theoretical basis of her work rather than her prior look at autobiographies.




> One of the biggest differences between Socionics and MBTI is the infamous J/P swap. In the process of developing MBTI, Myers changed one of the four Jungian dichotomies, making translation from Socionics over to MBTI difficult. While there are other important differences between the two theories, many type enthusiasts want to know which Jungian functional breakdown fits with which type.


Personally, I think Briggs' J/P dichotomy has merit all on its own. I think the flaw in type dynamics was trying to integrate this dichotomy as part of the underlying logic of how all the functions tie-in together. J/P stands alone just fine much like the Big Five's Conscientiousness domain.



> Well, if you look closely,[at what?] you'll notice that it is Myers who disagreed with Jung, [How? About what?] not anyone on the Socionics side[How do we know, if we don't know what the disagreement was about?]. So if we assume that Jung was right, then Socionics is more accurate than MBTI[This conclusion is not well supported by the premises. How can this be justified if we don't know what the supporting arguments are?]. The question then is, do we have reason to believe that Jung was wrong?[About what?] I see no reason why Isabel Myers would have the experience to overturn Jung's insights. [What insights did she overturn?] I would trust a man who spent his entire life studying people as a psychotherapist over a newly-minted PhD. But the only real way to know is to see how it plays out in reality.


Are you a person with a Feeling preference? This all sounds like Feeling logic.  (Not making any value judgments on that statement, just making an observation.)





> People who are interested in knowing the truth, and seriously consider both systems, pick Socionics over MBTI. I know many people who started with MBTI, then switched to Socionics. I'm still looking for people who started with Socionics, then switched to MBTI.


This is because MBTI is by far more popular. Because more people have been introduced to MBTI, there is a greater chance of someone starting there, then digging into other related theories. It is far less likely of a chance that people will discover Socionics first. But it does happen.




> So to sum up. When switching between systems, be aware of the origins of mbti, and that it was noticing the archetypes in literature, who kept repeating through the ages, that started Katherine Briggs on her journey of typology. Cognitive functions were not her or her daughters strength. Socionics stayed true to Jungs interpretations of the functions, and expanded on them. And when ordering the functions, stayed true to how Jung stated they are ordered. So keep these facts in mind when switching.


How do we know that cognitive functions were not Briggs' or Myers' strength? How does Socionics order functions? How do we know they are true to Jung?


In my opinion:

MBTI focuses on observable behaviour to deduce underlying functions.
Socionics focuses on the cognition itself (my assumption anyway, since I don't have a grasp of the theory yet)
The Big Five focuses on personality traits (of which 4 of the 5 dimensions can be connected back to the 4 dichotomies)

the above 3 are different facets of the central Jungian theory[SUP]1[/SUP].

NOTE: Though it may seem like I am pushing a stance, I am not. Rather, I am playing Devil's advocate.


[SUP]1[/SUP] - The Big Five is not derived from or necessarily directly connected to Jungian theory; however, researchers have noted a correlation between 4 of the 5 dimensions to MBTI's 4 dichotomies.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

> Then I would look at the following line that I've highlighted in red text that shows that Jung's book became the theoretical basis of her work rather than her prior look at autobiographies.


Yes I agree, she used it as a theoretical framework. The fact that she showed an aptitude in understanding the essence of character however, but had to rely on Jung to explain the functions, suggests she wasn't in a position to refute his understanding of them. She switched things around and put her own spin on them, defining them differently when she clearly wasn't qualified to do so. 




> Well, if you look closely,[at what?] you'll notice that it is Myers who disagreed with Jung, [How? About what?] not anyone on the Socionics side[How do we know, if we don't know what the disagreement was about?]. So if we assume that Jung was right, then Socionics is more accurate than MBTI[This conclusion is not well supported by the premises. How can this be justified if we don't know what the supporting arguments are?]. The question then is, do we have reason to believe that Jung was wrong?[About what?] I see no reason why Isabel Myers would have the experience to overturn Jung's insights. [What insights did she overturn?] I would trust a man who spent his entire life studying people as a psychotherapist over a newly-minted PhD. But the only real way to know is to see how it plays out in reality.


You're right. I should have been clearer here. I was referring to the way in which mbti changed the meaning of the functions and referred to the introverts as either perceiving or judging based on their auxiliary function. This goes against what Jung said. 

Jung said that for a Si dom, Ne will be unconscious, but mbti says the opposite. 

When talking of the Introverted Sensing type in psychological types he says: 
_His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character_

He says the same about a Ni dom. 

_The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order._

Psychological Types - Wikisocion

When you actually stop and think about what conscious v's unconscious actually mean, it becomes apparent that a persons psyche will be oriented in one direction consciously and an opposing direction unconsciously. 

If we compare Ne to looking at the world through the lens of a telescope, we could adjust that telescope to look at objects in our immediate vicinity ( Se ) . But we could not use it to look within. So a Ne dom can consciously adjust their lens to alternate between Ne and Se. 

_The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather by what just happens. Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no sort of proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but something that is apparently quite irregular and arbitrary judging from without, therefore, it is practically impossible to foretell what will make an impression and what will not. If there were present a capacity and readiness for expression in any way commensurate with the strength of sensation, the irrationality of this type would be extremely evident. This is the case, for instance, when the individual is a creative artist. But, since this is the exception, it usually happens that the characteristic introverted difficulty of expression also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may actually stand out by the very calmness and passivity of his demeanour, or by his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads the superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object._

Here he's saying that Si is not dependant upon the object. So to use Si you could close your eyes and shut out the world and focus your attention inward. On the inner sensations. The same would be true for Ni. It does not depend on an outside stimulus, the same way Ne and Se do. So conscious awareness points in the same direction.

The way Socionics orders the functions is in line with Jung. 

In Socionics an INTp's functions go in the order of Ni, Te, Si, Fe, / Se, Fi, Ne, Ti. 



My computer is acting up. I'll expand on this later. Thanks for the reply and for playing devils advocate. ; )


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

onion said:


> Yes I agree, she used it as a theoretical framework. The fact that she showed an aptitude in understanding the essence of character however, but had to rely on Jung to explain the functions, suggests she wasn't in a position to refute his understanding of them. She switched things around and put her own spin on them, defining them differently when she clearly wasn't qualified to do so.


How did she "have to rely" on Jung? I see it more as she chose to. Even if she relies on his explanation of the functions, how is it that she is necessarily not in any position to refute them? I do not possess a medical degree or medical training, yet I have refuted doctors' claims a number of times. I had fatigue problems and the doctors wanted me to take anti-depressive meds, ADHD meds, and anti-anxiety pills. After further research and testing on my own, I discovered that I merely needed glasses. The point here is that anyone can refute anyone else without experience or a degree in the given field, though unlikely.

But what did she refute anyway? What did she switch around and put her own spin on? What did she define differently?




> You're right. I should have been clearer here. I was referring to the way in which mbti changed the meaning of the functions and referred to the introverts as either perceiving or judging based on their auxiliary function. This goes against what Jung said.
> 
> Jung said that for a Si dom, Ne will be unconscious, but mbti says the opposite.


How does this go against what Jung said? Are you suggesting that the MBTI says that an ISFJ is an SiNeFeTi? I don't understand what you are getting at. According to Myers' Type theory, the P/J points to the extraverted function. She claims that this is how we can observe their behaviour, by the extraverted function.

Personally, I disagree with this. I think the introverted function _is_ noticeable in the outside world. And, as I stated earlier, that the P/J stands well on its own merit rather than being tied in to type dynamics. I prefer to think of it more as Open-Ended (P) vs Closure-Seeking (J) rather than merely pointing out the extraverted function.




> When talking of the Introverted Sensing type in psychological types he says:
> _His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character_
> 
> He says the same about a Ni dom.
> ...


While it's great that you provide evidence quoted by Jung, however, you did not provide a similar quote by Myers or Briggs to show how her understanding is switched around or misinterpreted. You just provide your opinion as a counter, which would be fine, if at the very least you can cite the source that you're referring to.

Also, you started out with an example of Si vs Ne, how does Ni fit into this?



> Psychological Types - Wikisocion
> 
> When you actually stop and think about what conscious v's unconscious actually mean, it becomes apparent that a persons psyche will be oriented in one direction consciously and an opposing direction unconsciously.
> 
> ...


What does the conscious vs the unconscious have to do with your argument that MBTI disagrees with Jung? Personally, I feel that either I am grossly misunderstanding something here (probably because I am unfamiliar with Socionics) or you are.



> The way Socionics orders the functions is in line with Jung.
> 
> In Socionics an INTp's functions go in the order of Ni, Te, Si, Fe, / Se, Fi, Ne, Ti.


How is this in line with Jung? Where has he ever stated such a configuration? Comparing this to my understanding of Jung and MBTI, I would say that MBTI's is closer. MBTI suggests Ni + Te + Fi + Se (Though officially it is Ni+Te+F+Se). There are strong arguments that suggest that Jung's "order of functions" would be Ni + Ti / Fe + Se. Regardless, where is there evidence that Jung's theory suggests what Socionics claims as the function order?


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

> How did she "have to rely" on Jung? I see it more as she chose to. Even if she relies on his explanation of the functions, how is it that she is necessarily not in any position to refute them? I do not possess a medical degree or medical training, yet I have refuted doctors' claims a number of times. I had fatigue problems and the doctors wanted me to take anti-depressive meds, ADHD meds, and anti-anxiety pills. After further research and testing on my own, I discovered that I merely needed glasses. The point here is that anyone can refute anyone else without experience or a degree in the given field, though unlikely.


I can understand what you mean here. I've had my own experiences with doctors and you're right, they don't always know what is best. Their "expert" status should ALWAYS be questioned. ALWAYS!!! lol. Yeah, I suppose she could refute them, but she hasn't shown competence in understanding or defining the functions and I'll explain why further down. 




> But what did she refute anyway? What did she switch around and put her on spin on? What did she define differently?


_Introverted Sensing: Compares present facts and experiences to past experience. Trusts the past. Stores sensory data for future use.

_

I used this example in the other thread, but I'll use it here too. Jung never said anything about Si being concerned with facts. And like I said in the other thread. You don't use your eyes and ears to store and compare facts. The brain is the part of the body that deals with sorting facts. So that's what I mean when I said she put her own spin on the meaning of Si, which is one of the functions. That's just one example. Ti, and Te are also defined differently in mbti than how Jung defined them. 




> How does this go against what Jung said? Are you suggesting that the MBTI says that an ISFJ is an SiNeFeTi? I don't understand what you are getting at. According to Myers' Type theory, the P/J points to the extraverted function. She claims that this is how we can observe their behaviour, by the extraverted function.


No. In mbti an isfj has functions going in the order of *Si, Fe, Ti, Ne*/ Se, Fi, Te, Ni. 

In mbti the second function of an introvert, is said to make someone either a perceiver or a judger. But Jung said it was the first function that makes someone a rational type or an irrational type. Irregardless of whether they were an introvert or an extrovert. By rational, he meant leads with a judging function. By irrational, he meant a perceiver. He never said anything about switching things around for the introverts. So again, mbti differs from Jung here. 

_Of the four functions, two (Feeling and Thinking) are the rational, or deciding, functions. The other two (Sensing and iNtuition) are the irrational (non-conclusive/perceiving) functions. 
_

Something just caught my attention that I'd like to point out. On the personality page for isfj it says: 

_More so than other types, ISFJs are extremely aware of their own internal feelings, as well as other people's feelings.* They do not usually express their own feelings, keeping things inside. *If they are negative feelings, they may build up inside the ISFJ until they turn into firm judgments against individuals which are difficult to unseed, once set. Many ISFJs learn to express themselves, and find outlets for their powerful emotions. _Portrait of an ISFJ

Notice how it says the isfj has to _learn_ how to express their feelings. It's not something that comes naturally to them. 



Now compare that to how mbti itself describes Fe and it's clear there is a clear contradiction here. 

Fe: Extraverted Feeling

_Extraverted Feeling involves considering other peoples feelings to a great level. We often try to help everyone get along, and we may often disclose our own feelings and take on others' as our own. We like to determine what will work best for the group in order to honor and consider everyones values and feelings. We accomodate ourselves and others by deciding what is appropriate and acceptable in that setting. We often use social graces by being polite, considerate, and appropriate. We often respond to people's expressed or unexpressed wants or desires.

_

Fe is all about expressing emotions, not keeping them in. It's extroverted feeling. So why does mbti contradict itself by saying an isfj has a hard time expressing emotions, yet claim they use Fe? Look at enfj's and esfj's and how expressive and inclusive they are. They lead with Fe. 

It's clear from the isfj description that an isfj uses Fi, as described by Jung. "They may appear cold, but still waters run deep" is how he described Fi.



> While it's great that you provide evidence quoted by Jung, however, you did not provide a similar quote by Myers or Briggs to show how her understanding is switched around or misinterpreted. You just provide your opinion as a counter, which would be fine, if at the very least you can cite the source that you're referring to.


I provided Jungs work to show that her j/p switching was incorrect. 




> What does the conscious vs the unconscious have to do with your argument that MBTI disagrees with Jung? Personally, I feel that either I am grossly misunderstanding something here (probably because I am unfamiliar with Socionics) or you are.


Well I explained how Jung said when Ne is the dominant conscious function, Si is the function that is chiefly repressed in the unconscious. The mbti function order for enfp states that both Ne and Si are conscious. And Jung states that they are not. 

The four conscious functions for an mbti enfp are: Ne, Fi, Te, Si. 

In Socionics the four counscious functions for enfp are: Ne, Fi, Se, Ti. ( Si is buried in the unconscious, just like Jung said it should be) 



> How is this in line with Jung? Where has he ever stated such a configuration? Comparing this to my understanding of Jung and MBTI, I would say that MBTI's is closer. MBTI suggests Ni + Te + Fi + Se (Though officially it is Ni+Te+F+Se). There are strong arguments that suggest that Jung's "order of functions" would be Ni + Ti / Fe + Se. Regardless, where is there evidence that Jung's theory suggests what Socionics claims as the function order?


I believe I just answered this question above. (at least that's what my enfp brain tells me. lol ) 

A strong argument =/= objective reality. From my observations Socionics lines up with objective reality. I'm an enfp, so it's in my nature to scour the world looking at these connections and because I value Te (objective logic) I make sure I am basing my arguments on tangible facts that I have observed.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

onion said:


> _Introverted Sensing: Compares present facts and experiences to past experience. Trusts the past. Stores sensory data for future use.
> _
> 
> I used this example in the other thread, but I'll use it here too. Jung never said anything about Si being concerned with facts. And like I said in the other thread. You don't use your eyes and ears to store and compare facts. The brain is the part of the body that deals with sorting facts. So that's what I mean when I said she put her own spin on the meaning of Si, which is one of the functions. That's just one example. Ti, and Te are also defined differently in mbti than how Jung defined them.


If your whole argument rests upon the keyword "facts" to undermine MBTI's description of Si, then I think you've misunderstood the context of the word. You are thinking of general facts, aka trivia. This is different from _the_ facts of a specific situation. When a cop is interviewing witnesses, he asks for the facts of the situation, ie what they observed; not how long can snails sleep without eating.




> No. In mbti an isfj has functions going in the order of *Si, Fe, Ti, Ne*/ Se, Fi, Te, Ni.
> 
> In mbti the second function of an introvert, is said to make someone either a perceiver or a judger. But Jung said it was the first function that makes someone a rational type or an irrational type. Irregardless of whether they were an introvert or an extrovert. By rational, he meant leads with a judging function. By irrational, he meant a perceiver. He never said anything about switching things around for the introverts. So again, mbti differs from Jung here.
> 
> _Of the four functions, two (Feeling and Thinking) are the rational, or deciding, functions. The other two (Sensing and iNtuition) are the irrational (non-conclusive/perceiving) functions. _


Thanks for clarifying. A technicality that I'd like to point out is that neither Jung or MBTI, ever talked about a total of eight functions in the psyche. Jung talked about two conscious and two unconscious functions. MBTI focuses on the two conscious functions. The eight function model comes from other interpretations such as from Beebe, Berens, etc.

Where does MBTI state that J/P equates to Rational or Irrational type? Again, as I pointed out earlier, the J/P is used as an indicator of the extraverted function; not to say which type is rational or irrational.




> Something just caught my attention that I'd like to point out. On the personality page for isfj it says:
> 
> _More so than other types, ISFJs are extremely aware of their own internal feelings, as well as other people's feelings.* They do not usually express their own feelings, keeping things inside. *If they are negative feelings, they may build up inside the ISFJ until they turn into firm judgments against individuals which are difficult to unseed, once set. Many ISFJs learn to express themselves, and find outlets for their powerful emotions. _Portrait of an ISFJ
> 
> ...


The first problem here is that you are referring to a third party's reference as an authoritative source. The good folks at BSM Consulting (the firm that runs this site) are not in any way licensed or affiliated with myersbriggs.org, CAPT, or CPP (who are the authoritative sources).

I'm not sure where you pulled that description of Fe from, but here's the description from myersbriggs.org, the same place where your Si quote comes from:



> *Extraverted Feeling:* Seeks harmony with and between people in the outside world. Interpersonal and cultural values are important.


There is no mention of expressing emotions or lack thereof. Furthermore, Feeling =/= emotions. Fe =/= expressing emotions.

Also, where does Jung mention that Fe is all about expressing emotions?




> Well I explained how Jung said when Ne is the dominant conscious function, Si is the function that is chiefly repressed in the unconscious. The mbti function order for enfp states that both Ne and Si are conscious. And Jung states that they are not.
> 
> The four conscious functions for an mbti enfp are: Ne, Fi, Te, Si.
> 
> In Socionics the four counscious functions for enfp are: Ne, Fi, Se, Ti. ( Si is buried in the unconscious, just like Jung said it should be)


Can you please cite the source where MBTI claims that there are four conscious functions and that for an ENFP they are Ne, Fi, Te, Si?

From my understanding of the subject matter, MBTI focuses on the dominant and auxiliary functions, which are conscious functions. For an ENFP that would be Ne + Fi. The other two are unconscious, where Te would be the second auxiliary or tertiary and Si would be the inferior.




> A strong argument =/= objective reality. From my observations Socionics lines up with objective reality. I'm an enfp, so it's in my nature to scour the world looking at these connections and because I value Te (objective logic) I make sure I am basing my arguments on tangible facts that I have observed.


While you are right that a strong argument doesn't necessarily equate to objective reality, you're initial argument was to say that Socionics was more in line with Jung than MBTI, not objective reality. In order to uphold this new argument and the old, you have to show that what Jung says also matches what you've claimed to have observed in Socionics and objective reality.

You still have not cited a source or provided a quote where Jung has demonstrated a function order/configuration similar to that of Socionics.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Ok thanks. 



> If your whole argument rests upon the keyword "facts" to undermine MBTI's description of Si, then I think you've misunderstood the context of the word. You are thinking of general facts, aka trivia. This is different from the facts of a specific situation. When a cop is interviewing witnesses, he asks for the facts of the situation, ie what they observed; not how long can snails sleep without eating.


Yeah I see what you mean. That's the problem with words. People interpret them differently and conflict inevitably follows. The bible is a good example of this. I actually set out to reconcile the two systems, but I seem to be trying to prove that Socionics is better than mbti. That's not what I set out to do however. Even though I do think Socionics is superior and explains reality a lot better than mbti. I suppose the point I was making is that mbti defines the functions very poorly and the way the functions are defined can be misleading. Various mbti sites put a different spin on them too. Socionics doesn't differ in its definitions and explains them in a more concrete way. But of course it could be argued that their "words" can be open to interpretation also. 



> Where does MBTI state that J/P equates to Rational or Irrational type? Again, as I pointed out earlier, the J/P is used as an indicator of the extraverted function; not to say which type is rational or irrational.



I got that quote from this site:

_Of the four functions, two (Feeling and Thinking) are the rational, or deciding, functions. The other two (Sensing and iNtuition) are the irrational (non-conclusive/perceiving) functions. 
_
Functional Analysis of Psychological Types



MBTI Personality Types


> The first problem here is that you are referring to a third party's reference as an authoritative source. The good folks at BSM Consulting (the firm that runs this site) are not in any way licensed or affiliated with myersbriggs.org, CAPT, or CPP (who are the authoritative sources).


I don't know what you mean by this. I got my isfj description from here: Portrait of an ISFJ


And the Fe description from here: Understanding the Myers Briggs Type Indicator: The 8 Cognitive Functions





> There is no mention of expressing emotions or lack thereof. Furthermore, Feeling =/= emotions. Fe =/= expressing emotions.


From my own observations of Fe leading and auxiliary types, I've noticed they are more adept at expressing their emotions. They don't keep them bottled up the way a Fi type does. I've also noticed that Fe valuing types will hug for much longer than Fi valuing types. Fi types will do that tapping thing that signals they've had enough hugging. If the hugging is too prolonged, they will begin to feel uncomfortable. Fe types will feel more comfortable with longer drawn out hugging sessions. You can observe this for yourself if you are sure of peoples types. (here I'm referring to hugs amoung aquaintences/friends, not intimate partners) 

Here's another quote to show I'm not the only one who thinks this: 

_What The Functions Mean

Feeling

Introverted - Emotions are rarely/not easily shown to others, they are mostly kept inside. This applies to physical appearances too as people express themselves with how they dress. Introverted Feelers tend to dress a lot plainer than their counterparts.

Extroverted - Feelings are outwardly/more easily expressed. This can affect your expressions, with largely animated faces and may get louder when driven by emotions.

_MBTI Misconceptions





Here's a quote from Jung on Fe: 

_Accordingly the observer senses the display of feeling not so much as a personal expression of the feeling-subject as an alteration of his ego, a mood, in other words. Corresponding with the degree of dissociation between the ego and the momentary state of feeling, signs of disunion with the self will become more or less evident, i.e. the original compensatory attitude of the unconscious becomes a manifest opposition. This reveals itself, in the first instance, in extravagant demonstrations of feeling, in loud and obtrusive feeling predicates, which leave one, however, somewhat incredulous. 
_

And Fi according to Jung: 

_A superficial judgment might well be betrayed, by a rather cold and reserved demeanour, into denying all feeling to this type. Such a view, however, would be quite false; the truth is, her feelings are intensive rather than extensive. They develop into the depth. Whereas, for instance, an extensive feeling of sympathy can express itself in both word and deed at the right place, thus quickly ridding itself of its impression, an intensive sympathy, because shut off from every means of expression, gains a passionate depth that embraces the misery of a world and is simply benumbed. It may possibly make an extravagant irruption, leading to some staggering act of an almost heroic character, to which, however, neither the object nor [p. 494] the subject can find a right relation. To the outer world, or to the blind eyes of the extravert, this sympathy looks like coldness, for it does nothing visibly, and an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces. 
_



> Can you please cite the source where MBTI claims that there are four conscious functions and that for an ENFP they are Ne, Fi, Te, Si?




Hierarchy or Order of Preference 


Mbti -- 1st -- 2nd -- 3rd -- 4th -- 5th -- 6th -- 7th -- 8th
ENFP -- Ne -- - Fi -- - Te -- Si --- Ni -- - Fe -- - Ti -- Se




_*Hierarchy Explained 

Some educators use the a numbering system and the term "hierarchy" to refer the arrangement of the functions with respect to one another. This sometimes implies a normal developmental sequence or an ordering of mastery of the functions - which is a conclusion that early proponents of the 8 Function model, like Beebe and Grant, would not agree is the case. To avoid this leap of logic, it may be more instructive to visualize the functions in their attitudes arranged in a circle, like a clock or a compass. *What is #1 in the "hierarchy" should be placed due North; its opposite, #8 in the hierarchy, should be placed due south.* #2 in the hierarchy can be placed at the Northeast point; its opposite, #7 in the hierarchy, would be placed at the Southwest point. #3 could be placed Northeast and its opposite - #6 placed Southwest. #4 and #5 would be placed East and West respectively. 

The top half of the compass would represent the more conscious mental functions; the bottom the more unconscious functions. Those on the East-West axis are in the gray area: semi-conscious. Most buried in the unconscious is the mental function lying in the 8th position. 



Link - _Myers Briggs Personality Types

Another link - http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/16Types/16Types.cfm

See this contradicts Jung. It says that Se is the opposite of Ne, and the eighth function for an enfp (Se) is the most buried in the unconscious, yet Jung says Si is the opposite and is the most repressed in the unconscious. 

_Most buried in the unconscious is the mental function lying in the 8th position._ 8th position is Se for an enfp. 


_The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted
attitude has a definitely introverting character.

_

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


So he's saying here that if someone is Ne dominant, the function that will reside in the unconscious, to compensate, will have an introverted attitude. I quoted him earlier, saying that sensing is opposed to intuition so if sensing "has an introverting character", this would be referring to Si.



> You still have not cited a source or provided a quote where Jung has demonstrated a function order/configuration similar to that of Socionics.


I did. I quoted from Psychological Types, where he said a Ni dominant type's most repressed function will be sensing and the sensing will be extroverted ( Se ). This is in line with Socionics. 

_The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order
_

If it's true that Ni's opposite is Se, then Ne's opposite is Si, and Fi's opposite will be Te. And in a Fi dominant type, their opposing function (Te) will be repressed the most, and dwell in the unconscious.
So, if an enfp's second function is Fi, and it's opposite is thinking, and that thinking will have an extraverted character, (Te) and it gets repressed to the unconscious, then this mbti site disagrees with Jung in saying that Te is the third strongest function for an enfp. 

_◦One preference has the most influence on you. This is called the dominant function.


◦The next strongest preference is called the auxiliary function. It is important because it serves to support and balance the dominant. 


◦*The third strongest is the tertiary function*_.



http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/


http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/16Types/16Types.cfm

_The Shadow Processes

The other four cognitive processes operate more on the boundaries of our awareness. It is as if they are in the shadows and only come forward under certain circumstances_.

If something is on the boundaries of our awareness, then it could be argued that this is referring to the unconscious, since we are not consciously aware of using these functions. 




My computer keeps freezing so I'll have to step away from it before I'm on the verge of punching it in the face. I have loads more to say though. : )


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

I don't think they'll kiss and make up. 

Embee was cheating on Soci with Keirsey during their entire marriage together. 

Then she got into a car accident with her new lover, and they're both in the infirmary. I don't know if they'll make it, but Ennea has been making exceedingly frequent visitations to all three of them.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> I don't think they'll kiss and make up.
> 
> Embee was cheating on Soci with Keirsey during their entire marriage together.
> 
> Then she got into a car accident with her new lover, and they're both in the infirmary. I don't know if they'll make it, but Ennea has been making exceedingly frequent visitations to all three of them.


You forgot to mention the part where Keirsey decided to fuck Jung all together and eventually took all of Embee's possessions and threw out everything he didn't see as worthwhile, whereas Soci got left all alone.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

lol.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

@PaladinX 

This person makes a much better attempt at explaining what I'm talking about. Maybe you should read this first before answering me. 

Best marriage / life-partnership relations - Duality?? Contrary?? - Socionics Forums

_Everything is the same. The types are the same. The introverted types NEVER flip. There is no J/P switch and there never has been. It's really very simple if you only keep in mind that MBTI has got the functions of the introverted types wrong. The leading (dominant) function of an MBTI INFP is Ni, not Fi. And the descriptions of the functions in MBTI is incorrect.

It's exactly the same intertype relations in MBTI. There is no problem what so ever. The relations are identical. The Dual type of the INFP is the ESTP in MBTI too.

You just have to forget about the functions. The functions in MBTI is just crap. The type INFP is the Dual partner to the type ESTP and nothing else. It doesn't matter what "functions" they are supposed to have in MBTI here. The MBTI functions don't exist in the real types.

The dichotomies are exactly the same. The functions in MBTI are wrong, however (and they don't exist)

Yes, I'm sure. I have investigated this problem in depth for some years now.

In MBTI (or more accurately MBTT since MBTI is only a typing tool) they have "reformed" the functions so that they will fit the observed behavior and attitudes of the types. So when you read functional analyses made by MBTI practitioners or theorists, they seem okay. But they are different in Jung's typology, and they are different in Socionics. Socionics is much more in line with Jung's original descriptions of the functions, but even in the socionic community a lot of people get them wrong and misunderstand them, which leads to mistypings.

No, an INFJ has Fi as leading function and Ne as auxiliary (creative). An ENFJ has, of course, an extraverted function as the leading one (Fe). If you look more closely, you will realize that the ordering of the third and fourth functions for the introverted types are the same in Socionics and MBTT. For example, the weakest function of both the INTp (ILI) and the INTP (in MBTI) is Fe, and they also describe the manifestations of that weak function in similar ways for that type. 


So, from the following table:
MBTI Cognitive functions 
INTP Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi 
ISTP Ti Se Ni Fe Te Si Ne Fi 
ENTJ Te Ni Se Fi Ti Ne Si Fe 
ESTJ Te Si Ne Fi Ti Se Ni Fe 
INTJ Ni Te Fi Se Ne Ti Fe Si 
INFJ Ni Fe Ti Se Ne Fi Te Si 
ENTP Ne Ti Fe Si Ni Te Fi Se 
ENFP Ne Fi Te Si Ni Fe Ti Se 
ISTJ Si Te Fi Ne Se Ti Fe Ni 
ISFJ Si Fe Ti Ne Se Fi Te Ni 
ESTP Se Ti Fe Ni Si Te Fi Ne 
ESFP Se Fi Te Ni Si Fe Ti Ne 
INFP Fi Ne Si Te Fe Ni Se Ti 
ISFP Fi Se Ni Te Fe Si Ne Ti 
ENFJ Fe Ni Se Ti Fi Ne Si Te 
ESFJ Fe Si Ne Ti Fi Se Ni Te 


And also, it seems then that according to Socionics dual types are really both Ps or both Js (so called Irrational/Rational). 

First of all, the most important thing to realize is that "Ti" in MBTT doesn't have the same meaning as Si in Socionics or "introverted thinking" in Jung's typology, mbti "Si" doesn't have the same meaning as Si in Socionics, etc. The functions, as they are defined in MBTT, does not exist._


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_onion_

Okay I think I see where the disconnect is now.

The trouble stems from the idea that there are a total of 8 functions in the psyche. According to your argument, the flaw is that #1 and #8 are supposed to be opposite, but according to MBTI schema, it doesn't match.

The problem I have with this is that neither Jung or MBTI have stated that there are 8 functions total in the psyche, they've only mentioned 4. In an ENFP, Ne and Fi are conscious and Te and Si are its compensatory functions in unconsciousness*. According to MBTI and Jung, there is no further mention of four other functions in between. This is the evidence that I was asking you to provide.

The other problem is that you are using references by third parties as evidence to what MBTI states. The claims that you have made are otherwise non-existent in official MBTI material. It would appear that others have made their own interpretations and claims based on the ideas from Jung and MBTI.


* Well I would argue that according to Jung it's actually Ne + Fe in consciousness and Ti + Si in unconsciousness. But for argument's sake, I will maintain the common understanding.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> @_onion_
> 
> Okay I think I see where the disconnect is now.
> 
> ...


Do you have any links to official mbti sources that state Te and Si are unconscious functions for an enfp?


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

onion said:


> So, if an enfp's second function is Fi, and it's opposite is thinking, and that thinking will have an extraverted character, (Te) and it gets repressed to the unconscious, then this mbti site disagrees with Jung in saying that Te is the third strongest function for an enfp.




First of all, there are varying models, and yes as PaladinX writes, it's not to say there are even 8 functions, there are 4. The roles they play aren't even clearly blocked by the MBTI, socionics makes a greater attempt at doing this.

Myers apparently conceived of the original model as closer to Ne-Fi-Ti-Si. So I'd not sweat too much about this point you're making. People seem to find the Ne-Fi + Te-Si blocking more meaningful, however, so it's stuck. Even in socionics, while not all these would be "conscious" in an IEE, they are the valued functions of their quadra, so still that concept has been given some merit by socionists.

But in response to your concern anyway, let's keep in mind, to apply the logic Jung applied to the dominant, to the aux, we're straying dangerously close to abandoning his founding principle in typology, which is that only a single function is "conscious". Then, he paints a portrait of a "conscious practical intellect" corresponding to an "unconscious intuitive feeling" but people sometimes jump on this bandwagon too soon, not recognizing Jung stipulated only one function can truly be called conscious --- it seems like an apparent contradiction on his part almost, but if one gets that he's outlining the conscious disposition, rather than stipulating which functions are truly conscious, then the contradiction appears to be resolved. 

So all this said, I do not think an auxiliary feeling in an ENFP as vaguely modeled on Jungian premises need correspond to Te being (essentially) absent from consciousness. That designation would apply to Si (and, ahem, by the way, to sensation entirely!). In an INFP, however, what you say is true. 

(If I'm getting you correctly, if not, whoops.)


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

bearotter said:


> First of all, there are varying models, and yes as PaladinX writes, it's not to say there are even 8 functions, there are 4. The roles they play aren't even clearly blocked by the MBTI, socionics makes a greater attempt at doing this.
> 
> Myers apparently conceived of the original model as closer to Ne-Fi-Ti-Si. So I'd not sweat too much about this point you're making. People seem to find the Ne-Fi + Te-Si blocking more meaningful, however, so it's stuck. Even in socionics, while not all these would be "conscious" in an IEE, they are the valued functions of their quadra, so still that concept has been given some merit by socionists.
> 
> ...


So do you think an ESTj will use Fi consciously or unconsciously?


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

onion said:


> So do you think an ESTj will use Fi consciously or unconsciously?​




That's up to socionics lol, not me​
edit -- I'm saying this because you used the socionics code. The MBTI, I'm a bit more open to freely interpreting as I please, as it doesn't fix things as much in stone, and (I believe) Myers even proposed an alternate model like Ne-Fi-Ti-etc for ENFP before the modern one, though I doubt it's used or considered much anymore.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

By Jung, feeling in a Te-dom probably is the very last thing you'd ever call a conscious function; more than anything else I'd say it's safest to call Fi rejected from consciousness. My understanding is Myers essentially developed the four-letter type code theory to indicate psychological type based on a formula she conceived of, along with a general model for how she sees type develop in real life, where the auxiliary is in the opposite attitude of the dominant.

also edit -- I don't recommend applying that formula to decide cognitive type, I recommend pursuing honest self-reflection plus means of correcting for one's blind spots to attempt it as successfully as possible. 
But that said, it was one thing to consider when first learning the system. And one can sometimes see what she was getting at, I just think the way the tests are framed, they don't measure for Je so much as J/P being its own think out in the woods.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

My take on socionics is you should take it for what it is --- it adds concepts not present in the original Jungian typology, and these can have merit for their own sake. Jung wasn't "all about" typology, he just made some (in my view pretty astute) observations typology-related, and his ideas can be taken in various directions. Depending on what people are looking for, they seem to react various ways to the directions socionics took things. 
I haven't found a reason to think socionics should be trashed. It's pretty interesting.



To add just a bit on your question about ESTj...I think you might see a Te-dom seek out Fi or be possessed by it in an out-of-control way sporadically at some junctures, and you might see how it is informing their psyche to some extent as an outside observer, but it'll be poorly integrated _possibly_ unless they've reached high maturity. Otherwise it'll just be more like an undertone in the average individual.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

bearotter said:


> By Jung, feeling in a Te-dom probably is the very last thing you'd ever call a conscious function; more than anything else I'd say it's safest to call Fi rejected from consciousness. My understanding is Myers essentially developed the four-letter type code theory to indicate psychological type based on a formula she conceived of, along with a general model for how she sees type develop in real life, where the auxiliary is in the opposite attitude of the dominant.
> 
> also edit -- I don't recommend applying that formula to decide cognitive type, I recommend pursuing honest self-reflection plus means of correcting for one's blind spots to attempt it as successfully as possible.
> But that said, it was one thing to consider when first learning the system. And one can sometimes see what she was getting at, I just think the way the tests are framed, they don't measure for Je so much as J/P being its own think out in the woods.


Are you assuming I'm only starting out learning about typology?


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_onion_ no, I kind of speak in monologues, and not strictly everything I say is assumed unknown to or in direct response to a party I'm discussing with.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

bearotter said:


> @onion no, I kind of speak in monologues, and not strictly everything I say is assumed unknown to or in direct response to a party I'm responding to.


Oh ok.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

onion said:


> Do you have any links to official mbti sources that state Te and Si are unconscious functions for an enfp?


From the manual, it outlines the ENFP's function order as

#1 Dominant N (E)
#2 Auxiliary F (I)
#3 Tertiary T (I)
#4 Inferior S (I)

So technically, as @bearotter pointed out, MBTI considers all partially or completely undifferentiated functions to be of the opposite attitude as the dominant.

The logic for this comes from the following quotes by Jung:



> The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character. (1923, p. 489)/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Ok, so you are going back to the beginning of mbti. But the point I'm making is that mbti institutions today have developed the theory further and say that an enfp has tertiary Te. And the vast majority of mbti enthusiasts on this site will claim they have tertiary Te. That's the point I'm making.

I came across this article yesterday that said Jung got his ideas about the Anima and Animus from Sabina Spielren, but never credited her for it. I'm beginning to doubt Jung was so omnipotent now. 

Sabina Spielrein: The Forgotten Psychoanalyst - The Airspace


And then there's Otto Gross: 

_Carl Jung credited Gross with having described two general types – "inferiority with shallow consciousness" and "inferiority with contracted consciousness" – that very closely resemble what Jung described as the extraverted feeling and introverted thinking types a decade later. *Despite having issues with Gross's theoretical assumptions of a secondary cell function *and the "individual" nature of a person's passion, Jung credited Gross with major advances in typological and psychological theory_.

Otto Gross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yet he wrote Gross off as a lunatic. There's a fine line between genius and madness. I'm not familiar with Gross's work, I'm going to study him now though and see what I can unearth. 

_The historiography of analysis will lose out if we were to brand Gross - as Jung and Freud did - a hopeless lunatic, or maybe a puer aeternus, nothing but a charismatic failure.
_


Otto Gross (1877-1920) - Biographical Survey, Gottfried Heuer


Einsteins quote "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" comes to mind.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

Ok, I'm going to be watching this thread pretty closely. This whole J/P thing has kind of hit an annoying critical mass of stupidity. I like a lot of the thoughts here, and I think it is important to realize that while they are different systems, they are very similar.

I think they're reconcilable. Both systems take very different approaches to Personality. BUT. I think in the western culture, the Socionic types probably look much more similar to MBTI types, because most people's views towards socionic types are fundamentally affected by the MBTI. For instance, I think most people here find out about Socionics by first learning MBTI. Thus, the way we view ourselves, and many of the original psychological labels we assign to ourselves are fundamentally Myers-Briggs.

I personally stopped believing that MBTI types and Socionic types were different about a year ago. Since then, I've had the most phenomenal year of my life. We all (should) know that Socionic Si is very different than MBTI Si, so I don't understand why people still try to simply change the last letters.



onion said:


> Hierarchy or Order of Preference
> 
> 
> Mbti -- 1st -- 2nd -- 3rd -- 4th -- 5th -- 6th -- 7th -- 8th
> ...


This is fascinating. I think this right here might be a hint why duality should work on the MBTI framework. Based on this (Myers-Briggs) interpretation, the exact opposite type based on functions to an ENFP is the ESTP. Which is very close to the Socionic dual of ISTP. It's very feasible that the ordering here is slightly wrong, and the true exact opposite type was really the ISTP, but I will need to put more thought into why this may be.


PS: I've felt very strongly about this issue for a long time. So long, that I plan to write a rather long and in depth analysis of a working reconciliation, and how it might function. I'll probably use a lot of the thoughts posted here in this thread, and try to answer the major questions people raise here. (Though @_onion_ seems to be well on her way to doing just this).




Keep up the great work @_onion_!


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

Also, can someone succinctly explain to me why Socionics switches the functions for introverts, while Myers-Briggs does not? I've never heard this explained well without tons and tons of overly-analytical fluff. Which did Jung believe? Why?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Also, can someone succinctly explain to me why *Socionics switches the functions for introverts*, while Myers-Briggs does not? I've never heard this explained well without tons and tons of overly-analytical fluff. Which did Jung believe? Why?


Switches from what, precisely? Augusta structured her types according to their base function. Isabel Myers structured her types according to which function was extroverted. That's all. I'm not all that well-versed in Jung, but I seem to recall that he considered Pi and Pe the Irrational types, and Ji and Je the Rational types.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

I think the confusion would be trying to translate the types in the same letter codes as what Socionics uses which would be a mistake. MBTI believed people would see the most conscious extraverted function (which I agree was incorrect from them) and Socionics rightfully realizes that if you're Ti base, then you're a judgment type and if you're Si base, then you're a perception type.
Rational basically = judging and irrational basically = perception. 

In Myers Briggs, differentiating Ni and Ne when you read the definitions is a pain in the ass, especially if you're a higher intuitive user who can't initially tell which sensing is in their consciousness (and if your initial mistype has you as Ni dom). I think both Pi descriptions are better/more Jungian than MBTI cognitive function descriptions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Also, can someone succinctly explain to me why Socionics switches the functions for introverts, while Myers-Briggs does not? I've never heard this explained well without tons and tons of overly-analytical fluff. Which did Jung believe? Why?


What Kanerou wrote. I would say socionics applies J/P as labels (not necessarily operative behaviors) correctly as Jung understood it i.e. judging types lead with a rational function and perceiving types lead with an irrational function, whereas Myers seemed to have sought more of a "behavioral" symmetry where xNTP is essentially the same type.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

thanks you guys. what a relief to b heard and understood.roud: tomorrow im going to start working on an animation. i had an epiphany last night how to use symbols to explain it more simply. watch this space.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Ok I made a start. It's a very rough draft. I used the image of a scales for the judging functions, since people are more comfortable making judgements either logically or emotionally. And I used a circle to show the world being perceived through the perceiving functions. 

Let me know what ye think. : )

















Sorry if they turned out too small.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Si is being in control and having mastery over your own body. It's poise. 
Se is being in control of the world outside. 

If a person was a bus, they'd use Si to look inside the bus, the dandruff on the bus drivers shoulders, the mother and her screaming baby, the feel of the engine running beneath them,. ..... They'd use Se to drive the bus, looking out onto the road, knowing when to stop, when to go, red lights, green lights, knowing when to hit the brakes, checking for pedestrians.......

Ne is intuition of what's out there, it's an intuitive understanding of the connectedness of the entire universe. And Ni is being in touch with the universes within. Ni just knows, because there are archetypal shapes and images that are hardwired into our brains. A circle is an archetype, the golden ratio is an archetype, hot, cold, night, day, yin/yang.


----------



## GrimThird (Jun 4, 2013)

onion said:


> Si is being in control and having mastery over your own body. It's poise.
> Se is being in control of the world outside.
> 
> If a person was a bus, they'd use Si to look inside the bus, the dandruff on the bus drivers shoulders, the mother and her screaming baby, the feel of the engine running beneath them,. ..... They'd use Se to drive the bus, looking out onto the road, knowing when to stop, when to go, red lights, green lights, knowing when to hit the brakes, checking for pedestrians.......
> ...


Not really. These sound like MBTI descriptions.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

GrimThird said:


> Not really. These sound like MBTI descriptions.


And how are they nothing like Socionics functions? Or are you just taking the piss?


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

The only thing you have to do is to link the functions to each other. I.E. that socionics Si = MBTI/JCF Si etc. I did the models in about an hour a few months ago, but I lack the patience to discuss the back and forth with people who insist on getting hung up on descriptions rather than looking at what the functions do. It's the same reason that I'm not going to spend time trying to type anyone who says shit like "I test as an INFP, but I feel like the ENTP description fits me better"


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> The only thing you have to do is to link the functions to each other. I.E. that socionics Si = MBTI/JCF Si etc. I did the models in about an hour a few months ago, but I lack the patience to discuss the back and forth with people who insist on getting hung up on descriptions rather than looking at what the functions do. It's the same reason that I'm not going to spend time trying to type anyone who says shit like "I test as an INFP, but I feel like the ENTP description fits me better"


The problem I have found is that the mbti descriptions don't match up to the functions for the introverts. I mentioned the isfj earlier, how the description paints a picture of someone who appears emotionally cold, yet in mbti they are said to use Fe. The Fe label and the description of the isfj personality do not match up. 

Jung described Fi as "still waters run deep" Fi is self contained, and I think the person being called isfj in mbti is a Fi type, just like the ISFj of Socionics is a Fi type. Their inability to use Ne is obvious and change really unsettles them, they sure as hell don't welcome change. My mother is of this type, and I have a close isfj friend too so I know this type quite well. And they are both isfj in mbti, and ISFj in Socionics. 

When people say isfj in mbti, I have to wonder, are they going by the type description and the person they are talking about actually uses Fi? Or are they going by the functions and talking about a Fe user? And if they are going by the functions, then who is this mythical creature who uses Si and Fe and is afraid and unwelcoming of Ne? Cos it can't be an isfp they are talking about, since isfp's will welcome Ne with open arms. And they'll cook me a tasty meal when I call round.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

onion said:


> The problem I have found is that the mbti descriptions don't match up to the functions for the introverts. I mentioned the isfj earlier, how the description paints a picture of someone who appears emotionally cold, yet in mbti they are said to use Fe. The Fe label and the description of the isfj personality do not match up.
> 
> Jung described Fi as "still waters run deep" Fi is self contained, and I think the person being called isfj in mbti is a Fi type, just like the ISFj of Socionics is a Fi type. Their inability to use Ne is obvious and change really unsettles them, they sure as hell don't welcome change. My mother is of this type, and I have a close isfj friend too so I know this type quite well. And they are both isfj in mbti, and ISFj in Socionics.
> 
> When people say isfj in mbti, I have to wonder, are they going by the type description and the person they are talking about actually uses Fi? Or are they going by the functions and talking about a Fe user? And if they are going by the functions, then who is this mythical creature who uses Si and Fe and is afraid and unwelcoming of Ne? Cos it can't be an isfp they are talking about, since isfp's will welcome Ne with open arms. And they'll cook me a tasty meal when I call round.


Get away from the descriptions you have to look at the functions and how they are ordered. The 8 function model and socionics Model A do line up but not in perfect order. ISFJ in MBTI is Si-Fe ISFJ in socionics corresponds to ISFP Fi - Se in terms of functions. 

Descriptions are the attempt of people to put abstract concepts into words, I.E Ti isn't an actual thing, it's an amalgamate of "processes" that that if viewed as a whole has certain characteristics. So, when people describe a function, they are often describing "does" rather than "is". This is why the descriptions can be so horribly misleading, because they are often observations of multiple people through their functions and there is a reason why eye-witness testimony is mistrusted.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> Get away from the descriptions you have to look at the functions and how they are ordered. The 8 function model and socionics Model A do line up but not in perfect order. ISFJ in MBTI is Si-Fe ISFJ in socionics corresponds to ISFP Fi - Se in terms of functions.
> 
> Descriptions are the attempt of people to put abstract concepts into words, I.E Ti isn't an actual thing, it's an amalgamate of "processes" that that if viewed as a whole has certain characteristics. So, when people describe a function, they are often describing "does" rather than "is". This is why the descriptions can be so horribly misleading, because they are often observations of multiple people through their functions and there is a reason why eye-witness testimony is mistrusted.


You're missing the point of what I'm saying. The mbti function order is impossible and therefor wrong. There is no such thing as a Si,Fe,Ti,Ne user. This function order can't possibly exist in a person. So when it comes to mbti, the functions should be ignored. There IS such a thing as a Fi,Se,Ti,Ne user. And that is the ISFj in Socionics. Behaviours exhibited by this functional stack, are exhibited in the type description of isfj in mbti and no one else.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

onion said:


> You're missing the point of what I'm saying. The mbti function order is impossible and therefor wrong. There is no such thing as a Si,Fe,Ti,Ne user. This function order can't possibly exist in a person. So when it comes to mbti, the functions should be ignored. There IS such a thing as a Fi,Se,Ti,Ne user. And that is the ISFj in Socionics. Behaviours exhibited by this functional stack, are exhibited in the type description of isfj in mbti and no one else.


So, why is the function order impossible?


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

onion said:


> You're missing the point of what I'm saying. The mbti function order is impossible and therefor wrong. There is no such thing as a Si,Fe,Ti,Ne user. This function order can't possibly exist in a person. So when it comes to mbti, the functions should be ignored. There IS such a thing as a Fi,Se,Ti,Ne user. And that is the ISFj in Socionics. Behaviours exhibited by this functional stack, are exhibited in the type description of isfj in mbti and no one else.


That's why the descriptions suck, if you check the ISFP and ISTP descriptions they could match to SEI and SLI respectively, so there's a clear fail in the MBTI. If you really want to do a in depth analysis you have to forget those crappy descriptions and focus on what really matters, which are the underlying functions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

onion said:


> You're missing the point of what I'm saying. The mbti function order is impossible and therefor wrong. There is no such thing as a Si,Fe,Ti,Ne user. This function order can't possibly exist in a person. So when it comes to mbti, the functions should be ignored. There IS such a thing as a Fi,Se,Ti,Ne user. And that is the ISFj in Socionics. Behaviours exhibited by this functional stack, are exhibited in the type description of isfj in mbti and no one else.


But the socionics ESI is FiSeNiTe, not FiSeTiNe. You are taking the order literally but you aren't looking at what the order implies in terms of theory, which to the ESI type means that TiNe are the most devalued elements in their type. Compare to socionics and Beebe as one model:

FiSe NiTe|FeSi NeTi
ego super-id|id superego
VALUED|DEVALUED
CONSCIOUS|UNCONSCIOUS

Another way of putting it would be:

1 hero/base positive, confident, ego-focused
2 parent/creative positive, confident, others-focused
5 child/HA positive, vulnerable, others-focused
6 anima/suggestive positive, vulnerable, ego-focused
-------
4 trickster/PoLR  vulnerable (compensatory), others-focused
3 demon/role negative, vulnerable (compensatory), ego-focused
5 opposing/ignoring negative, confident, ego-focused
6 witch/senex/demonstrative negative, confident, others-focused

Notice how many of Beebe's archetypes even match Model A. The puer aeterna or child function in Beebe's model is essentially the childish agenda people have, this from Eric B's description though it imo leaves things to be desired:



> PUER/PUELLA ("eternal child", tertiary)
> 
> Since this would be the function our egos run to to maintain the dominant attitude, we probably don't project this associated complex onto others. The ego naturally owns it quickly. (Projection would be seeing others as "children" in some way).
> 
> ...


Compare to the HA descriptions:

Short descriptions of Hidden Agendas by Ganin

ENTp, ESTp - to be loved
INTj, INFj - to be healthy
ESFj, ESTj - to be perfect
ISFp, INFp - to understand
ENFj, ENTj - to be wealthy
ISTj, ISFj - to believe
ESFp, ENFp - to know
INTp, ISTp - to love 

I prefer Ganin over Expat because imo Expat doesn't know what he's really talking about, though he's touching on a similar dimension, especially as Beebe:

*The "pathetic hidden agenda" by Expat

The focus on one's hidden agenda is also manifested in a "patting yourself on the back" way, when you are reassuring others that you are actually good in doing something, but it's painfully obvious to others that you are above all reassuring yourself and not doing a good job at it - and by doing that, you end up behaving in a pathetic way.
Fe







: behavior aimed at showing how popular and liked by the crowd you are, but that is actually making you look like an ass.
Ti







: unshakeable and stubborn defense of ideas and beliefs against all opposition, with unwillingness to even discuss the possibility of their not being correct
Fi







unshakeable and stubborn unwillingness to compromise on personal behavior and principles against all opposition in a social situation
Te







: behavior aimed at showing how competent you are in handling practical and financial affairs, or in how much knowledge in a particular subject you have, but painfully focusing on non-essentials to the point made
Ni







: unshakeable belief that you know exactly what is going to happen in your life in a given situation, or precipitated action since you know that "now is the time to act", but ending up shooting your own foot in both cases
Se







: behavior aimed at showing how successful, rich, or physically strong and brave and confrontational you are, when others can see you're none of them
Si







: showing off how wiser you are than others in taking care of your health by good food and avoiding personal risks, but making you look like a paranoid pussy-wimp. Also, an essentially unphysical person trying to show off how they master daily details in administration, maintainance, housekeeping, etc
Ne







: behavior aiming at showing how original and creative you can be, but making too much out of obvious and trivial ideas. 
So if you see someone behaving in a pathetic way, just remember -- on other occasions, it's you doing it.*

Is the similarity there? Yes, it is. These are the relationships you'd need to show if anything, the structural relationships, how the theories overlap in terms of theory, not descriptions.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

onion said:


> There IS such a thing as a Fi,Se,Ti,Ne user.




Why would this be any more likely than the MBTI version? The socionics version essentially breaks IE into valued and devalued, and the valued ones correspond to those the MBTI uses to describe their types, with the exception that J/P is not the same as j/p. 

The reason, ESI has Fi-Se Ti-Ne as functions 1 through 4 is simply that these are all static elements. It's always true that 1-4 are all static, or all dynamic. 

The reason for this grouping strikes me as entering territory that is strictly outside the MBTI, and if anything one of the many conceptual additions to original Jungian typology...even if they're all studying 'the same thing,' it's still an addition as far as my knowledge goes.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

I thought we had addressed the below. Your original issue was that an ENFP cannot have Ne-Fi-Te-Si...because conscious Fi sends Te to unconsciousness or something, but this logic simply doesn't apply unless we're talking of the dominant-inf opposition if we are sticking to Jung's theory. If we're not, then that's a different story. 

If you like socionics' groupings into conscious/unconscious etc better that's fine, but they rest on the addition of new dichotomies as far as I can tell. All of this is structure Jung simply didn't add, which is why he never, to my knowledge, gave more than a suggestion of basic temperament theory (a practical intellect in consciousness corresponds roughly to the intuitive feeling in the unconscious), far from blocking out the structure of 16 types. 



onion said:


> _The mbti function order is impossible and therefor wrong. _


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Anyway, I think the crux of the confusion here is you're taking MBTI's 4-function/shadow-function divide as the conscious/unconscious divide and comparing it to the divide of socionics into mental and vital rings, which correspond to the static/dynamic dichotomy, and frankly _neither_ of these is quite the same as conscious/unconscious to me in Jung -- Jung rests on the idea that solely one function can be conscious in a non-relative sense for his purposes.
Now it's unclear if he thought type can change, so that is a different story. Although changing one's type just means one has a different set of problems, not that one is more 'masterful' with respect to a new function or something like that necessarily (in quotes due to alleged meaninglessness).


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

If you're talking about going just by the functions in mbti, then you may as well be studying the manual for making the magic grain santa uses to feed his reindeers to make them fly. You're all forgetting that these are people we are talking about. Real observable people. Not some theoretical hobeldy gobbledygook. Katherine Myers came to typology because of the frequency of the same characters turning up in literary works through the ages. She clearly didn't understand the functions. Look at all the arguments mbti theorists have with each other. There isn't any real understanding being shown. Just wild guesses. I mean if we're going to ignore the type descriptions altoghther, then what's the point? Who exactly are we talking about when we say mbti istj? What is his character like? what is his biggest problem? Is Ne his biggest problem? Does he care to improve his abilities with Ne? Can he stand to be around Enfp's? Or would he rather stay away from our particular brand of crazy? And what about the mbti istp? Is he not like his ISTp cousin? Is Fe not his biggest flaw? If you Fe bomb him, will he not bleed? Lenore thompson seems to think so. 

Wether anyone likes it or not, people will take the tests and if they come out wrong, they will know the test is wrong if the type descriptions don't accurately describe them. A noobie coming to mbti isn't going to know what the fuck Te or Si means. But they will know exaclty what words like duty bound, reliable, logical, dislikes change, and dependable mean. Why bog people down with unnecessary bullshit. Why not call a spade a spade. Mbti dropped the ball on the functions, but they identified all the 16 types, and did a good enough job describing how their characters behave. John Beebe in fairness was close with his ideas, but he's just one mbti theorist swimming in a sea of lost fish. Way too much conflicting information on the mbti side. It should just be thrown out. It will b obsolete in the future, I have no doubt. 


And how do I know Sí, Te,Fi, Ne can't exist as conscious functions? I understand the functions and I observe people and my own cognitive processes very closely.it's obvious to me that they can't exist in that order. If you think of consciousness as attention or energy flowing, then it can only flow in one direction at a time, so if thinking is flowing outward, then feeling will flow outward also, but it will be inferior to thinking. When you think of the perceiving functions, if Sí is looking in, focused on bodily sensations, taste,touch, both feet firmly on the ground.......and Ne is a type of consciousness that is looking down on the whole world, seeing the big picture clearer than any other picture, like an astronaut looking down on the world from above, seeing the whole world as one, how can you look at both extremes in a conscious focused manner? Can you set a telescope to look at a far away galaxy and at the same time focus on a bacterium and have it act like a microscope? That's impossible. And that is why Socionics is right with how they ordered the functions. We need our duals for balance. What we need is outside of ourselves and in our duals. We become whole when they show us how to use our unconscious functions.if mbti was right, everyone would be born with their functions perfectly balanced, but in the real world, I know no one is perfect. So that's how I know Sí,Te,Fi,Ne is impossible.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

I should really change the name of this thread to mbti can suck my balls.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Well I'm for sure not claiming the MBTI has it all right. I think socionics added a lot of interesting things. I just think they need to be understood very carefully in context of what they really are. 



> that is why Socionics is right with how they ordered the functions




socionics didn't quite _order_ the functions in order of _preference in individuals _(look at certain people's attitude towards Te vs others' attitudes towards Fe based on their polr, and certain Fi-polr types' reactions to the function), they ordered functions with a numbering related to how they see information metabolism happening in individuals. You might be aware of this, but just for the purposes of clarity for those reading.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

The thread produced impressive/quality responses, more so than the previous batch of threads. A lot of the things that should be focused on took form and were verbalized/demonstrated. I'll be able to deal with some of these now, more pieces are gained with every trial, responses keep evolving.



> _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_
> ...


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

http://www.typeinsights.com/FreeArticles/Evolvingthe8functionmodel.pdf



I just came across this. It seems John Beebe is diverging from mbti and discovering what Socionics knew all along. The fact that he's an entp is interesting, as Aushra was entp also. Yes he is saying the same thing as Socionics, that an entp values Ne, Ti, Fe, Sí.

Ok thanks. That finally makes sense to me. So I can see why people call an istj an ISTp now. But it still begs the question. Why don't the type descriptions match the particular strengths of each function? The one thing that draws people to mbti, is it's simplicity. People are put off Socionics because it seems too convoluted and complex. But in actuality, it is mbti that is more complex because it confuses everything, in much the same way as a bad teacher will make something more confusing than it really is, because they don't fully understand the concepts they are trying to teach. Myers and Briggs did us a disservice by calling the introvert judging types perceivers and the introvert perceiving types judgers. When I read a type description for an introvert and I hear them describing what a Ti ego does, and then attributing their behaviour to some other function, I just feel itchy inside. They say an isfj is cold to the outside observer and then go on and say an isfj uses and values Fe. It just makes me want to scream.


Profile of the ISFJ Personality Type | Truity


I mean, I see lots of Fi, here, but no Sí. I bet her apple pie wouldn't taste as good as a Sí doms apple pie. And if Sí in mbti is all about tradition and turning you into the person being described here, then my Ne is definitely not looking for that. My Ne wants the type of Sí with sophisticated taste buds,That will cook me a tasty enough casserole that I will actually sit down and eat, cos it smells and tastes too good to ignore, on days I don't feel like eating but really need to eat something, that's the Si I want, not this traditional looking to the past type of Sí, that isfj's use. My mother is an mbti isfj and a socionics isfj, and her cooking is bland and tasteless. For her, it's her duty to feed her children. The taste is secondary. 

I just wonder who exactly is John Beebe referring to when he talks about a Sí Dom. Is he talking about the ISFj or the ISFp? Or has he not realised yet, that the Sí Dom actually fits the description for the artist isfp , and not the duty bound, bland cooker isfj.

I actually think mbti Si, is trying to describe weak and unvalued Ne. That's why it is so stuck in the past. Si, has nothing to do with the past. Si is totally absorbed in the moment, in the here and now.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

onion said:


> http://www.typeinsights.com/FreeArticles/Evolvingthe8functionmodel.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...


let me analyze this text for you so you can see how I see it, from a Jungian and NOT MBTI perspective:

ISFJs are industrious caretakers, loyal to traditions and organizations. They are practical, compassionate, and caring, and are motivated to provide for others and protect them from the perils of life. Sounds like delta values too me overall. Caretakers is what Gulenko describes the Si types to be in the relationship, which is later emphasized in the part I underlined. Seems Si-Fe to me. Very much so. The socionics ESI does not protect people from danger of the outside world, would you just switch the J/P around. They are overall aggressive and pushing people. This doesn't sound like an Fi dom to me. 



> ISFJs are conventional and grounded, and enjoy contributing to established structures of society. They are steady and committed workers with a deep sense of responsibility to others. They focus on fulfilling their duties, particularly when they are taking care of the needs of other people. They want others to know that they are reliable and can be trusted to do what is expected of them. They are conscientious and methodical, and persist until the job is done.


So a sensor type with the whole grounded aspect. Steady and committed still sounds more like Si ego, because Si types don't like to hurry but prefer doing things in their own pace. Taking care of the needs of people is very vague, and doesn't describe what kind of ethics we're talking about, though as a whole it is Fe that is other-oriented whereas Fi is self-oriented. Reliability doesn't suggest anything much. They could as well just be enneagram 6s according to this description thus far.



> ISFJs are driven by their personal values, and are conscientious in their behavior. They typically want to work hard, get along with others, and make sure they do what is expected of them.


Being driven by personal values sounds Fi-ish, but then it steers off from anything Fi right away and moves more towards delta values with working hard, but then doing what is expected isn't quite Ji ego in general. Ji shies away from anything Je or "do the expected", so this description is already contradictory at some level. It's not describing the psychological makeup of an ISFJ or SiFe or even for the matter Fi type, but it's describing a stereotypical character portrait of someone who doesn't really exist in terms of function theory. While this person could be observed IRL, this person could likely be any kind of type as long as they exhibit this behavior expressed here, which ultimately seems to be stereotyped the most around the enneagram 6 type, more on the phobic side with a 9 fix. 



> ISFJs value relationships highly and strive to cooperate and maintain harmony with others. They want stability and longevity in their relationships, and tend to maintain a deep devotion to family. They feel most connected with people they know they can rely upon over the long term.


Maintaining harmony doesn't sound quite like Fi, and any type can value relationships highly. While one might argue that stable relationships could be Fi in that it seems to fit the static idea of Fi more, but feeling connected with people long-term doesn't indicate neither Fi nor Fe. Again, this sounds more like a phobic type 6 than an SiFe or Fi type.



> ISFJs appreciate tradition and like knowing how things were done in the past. They are loyal to established methods and values, and want to observe the proper, accepted way of doing things. They place great importance on fitting in with established institutions and contributing what they can to maintain strong, stable social structures. In groups, they often take on the role of historian, ensuring that new members respect and value the established customs.


Yes, I think it's trying to tap a bit into Si here, though the whole fitting in has nothing to do with either feeling function but seems more 6/9 as I already pointed out. Taking the role of the historian is actually something quite observable in xSFJs however, and Si types in general. Si types often talk about the past and past experiences or as someone pointed out to me recently, they sound like broken records because they keep repeating what they know. 



> ISFJs are characteristically humble and unassuming, and rarely call attention to themselves. They can often be found offering assistance to others in a modest, understated way. They are loyal and hardworking, and often commit themselves to tasks and projects with the aim of being helpful to their families, friends, and communities. They are typically involved in social groups, but do not want the spotlight: they are more likely to be found behind the scenes, working diligently to fulfill their role.


This doesn't say anything in terms of function, really, more than describing some general introvert.



> ISFJs are oriented to relationships, but can be reserved with new people. They rarely disclose personal information quickly. They tend to be focused and aware of their surroudings, and relate details from their own personal experience. They often converse in terms of what has happened to them and what they have seen first-hand. They are compassionate listeners, and typically remember details about people. They often enjoy hearing the facts about others in the process of making a connection.


Yeah, this does sound a lot like an xSFJ to me, for most of the part, based on those I've observed. 



> I mean, I see lots of Fi, here, but no Sí. I bet her apple pie wouldn't taste as good as a Sí doms apple pie. And if Sí in mbti is all about tradition and turning you into the person being described here, then my Ne is definitely not looking for that. My Ne wants the type of Sí with sophisticated taste buds,That will cook me a tasty enough casserole that I will actually sit down and eat, cos it smells and tastes too good to ignore, on days I don't feel like eating but really need to eat something, that's the Si I want, not this traditional looking to the past type of Sí, that isfj's use. My mother is an mbti isfj and a socionics isfj, and her cooking is bland and tasteless. For her, it's her duty to feed her children. The taste is secondary.


You are correct that Si isn't about tradition, but there is an aspect to tradition that is a part of Si - the worshiping of idols. Si compresses sensory information into archetype content, and when it does so in the sensory world you end up with idols. Of course, this is the literal version, but also applies metaphorically. It's also about the re-enactment of sensory experience in order to deepen and enhance the already existing sensory experience experienced. Thus Si becomes ritualistic in a way the other functions aren't. 



> I just wonder who exactly is John Beebe referring to when he talks about a Sí Dom. Is he talking about the ISFj or the ISFp? Or has he not realised yet, that the Sí Dom actually fits the description for the artist isfp , and not the duty bound, bland cooker isfj.


Why must it be any of those? Why can't it be neither? Why must the ISFJ description fit any of these things? I think descriptions exist in their own vacuum a little bit like Keirsey, because the people they describe are definitely not Si types per se, though there is an overlap, but they aren't Fe types either, though again there's an overlap, but they are not Fi types either, though again there's an overlap. So what are these people? Si archetypes, specifically, actually. They are Si archetypes based on the same pattern of people observed over time distilled into an idol or archetype idea of the type. We know it is sensation because more focus is spent on how the type appears rather than how the type operates cognitively. So the simple answer is that the ISFJ description is not an SiFe, nor Fi-Xx, because the archetype pattern of the ISFJ description describes an archetypal behavioral pattern, which is not the same as someone who operates with these cognitive functions. In Jungian terms, the ISFJ description is a specific persona, but it is not SiFe or Fi or anything such per se. 



> I actually think mbti Si, is trying to describe weak and unvalued Ne. That's why it is so stuck in the past. Si, has nothing to do with the past. Si is totally absorbed in the moment, in the here and now.


Si is about the past and the present. Si is part kind of like forcing the present to fit the past to a degree. Si isn't and cannot be totally observed in the moment, in the here and now. If it was that, it would be Pe, not Pi. Pe experiences the moment, the here, what is now, Pi doesn't do that. Pi is a dynamic process and observes movement and flow and tries to connect events with each other. There's an interesting concept for this in Japanese art called ma:

Ma (negative space) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Imagine ma as Pi. Pe would be the actual space, Pi the space between space. I hope this makes more sense. I think your problem is that you're hung up on that descriptions must describe a type but they don't. They can claim that they do but it doesn't mean that they do. I also think your problem is that you're hung up on the descriptions of what the functions are or are not in both the MBTI and socionics. Let go of descriptions. They are useless and only serve as a guiding point.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> let me analyze this text for you so you can see how I see it, from a Jungian and NOT MBTI perspective:
> 
> ISFJs are industrious caretakers, loyal to traditions and organizations. They are practical, compassionate, and caring, and are motivated to provide for others and protect them from the perils of life. Sounds like delta values too me overall. Caretakers is what Gulenko describes the Si types to be in the relationship, which is later emphasized in the part I underlined. Seems Si-Fe to me. Very much so. The socionics ESI does not protect people from danger of the outside world, would you just switch the J/P around. They are overall aggressive and pushing people. This doesn't sound like an Fi dom to me.
> 
> ...



Ok so applying the same logic, how would you interpret this type description? 

Socionics - the16types.info - Dreiser, Female portrait, ISFj by Beskova


And please leave the enneagram out of it. The enneagram is about as reliable as a horoscope or a dodgy palm reader.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

onion said:


> Ok so applying the same logic, how would you interpret this type description?
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Dreiser, Female portrait, ISFj by Beskova
> 
> ...


I am just pointing out that enneagram archetypes exist in exactly the same manner, which is why descriptions of say the INTP and type 5 overlap because they are desribing the same archetype.



> Well-built and graceful, DREISERKA is in good control of her body - she moves confidently and beautifully, sits straight, demonstrating her great posture. Her clothing looks tidy and befitting of her figure. Her entire appearance makes a worthy impression. Some bare skin does not spoil her look, but only enhances it since she usually has nothing to be ashamed of concerning her figure. Moreover, she is very graceful.


Strong focus on Se here. 



> Most often, she has classically built face and unusually expressive, warm, agitating eyes. She knows how to select a complimenting haircut and professionally uses make-up.


Se, a bit of VI. 



> In childhood, DREISERKA is often a strict and correct girl, very assiduous. She knows how to be nice, what behavior is appropriate and what is not appropriate. There is order in her mind, on her working desk, in her briefcase, her notes are written in tidy hand-writting.


Doesn't say anything to me in terms of functions. I can see how this applies to Fe as it would Fi. It's describing behavior and appearance which doesn't capture how the type operates cognitively, something all descriptions fail at doing at some level. 

What's important isn't that they are appropriate or how they know what is appropriate, but it's how they arrive at the conclusion knowing what's appropriate that defines Fe or Fi. Same with the ISFJ portrait. Overall though, I don't get the impression that Beskova is describing a soft-hearted person.



> DREISERKAs are demanding of themselves. They possess a strong will and can force themselves to do many of the things that are usually undesirable for children. But they are also exacting of others, such that not everyone will want to become friends with this girl. DREISERKA does not allow anyone to get away with any irresponsibility. She does homework in accordance to her schedule, among many other things. She prefers measured-out life from childhood and she becomes upset if her plans don't come together. In such cases, unexpectedly, she may even cry. Thus, there must be no unexpected trips to the zoo or the aquarium. It is better to plan activities with her beforehand.


So Se, Fi and Te in this paragraph.



> Due to their general perseverance and diligence one can assume that DREISERKA will study well. Sometimes they graduate with honors. Though they generally have more interest in humanitarian subjects than in mathematics or sciences, girls of this type often major in technical subjects, and can later even work as engineers.


At least Beskova portrays the ESI in a more varied light than the ISFP portrait. 



> DREISERKAs have nothing against serious involvement with sports. They usually have beautiful, strong bodies; therefore they can make for outstanding gymnasts, swimmers (synchronized swimming), figure skaters, acrobats and dancers.


Implying Se.



> DREISERKA does not like large gatherings where there are many unknown people. In childhood, she makes one or two close friends. The next wave of friendships occurs for her in college. Here, she will make another 1-2 friends and then keep them for life. Specifically, with them, she will share her happiness and misfortunes.


General introvert definition in the social sense. Doesn't really define Fi.



> However, the fact that she has few close friends does not mean that she doesn't like to sometimes enjoy a celebration or party. These girls dance well and moreover are very beautiful and graceful. Therefore, they have success in any social gathering. But do not hope that you will easily earn the trust of a DREISERKA. She will give you serious attention if you are promising, young, and resourceful. She also likes a man who thinks quickly on his feet and shows mental acuity. If you have all of these characteristics, then, there is no doubt, that she will make you marry her sufficiently quickly, because DREISERKA is a girl marked by drive and determination; she follows through with her goals. And she never steps back from her purpose.


More Se. A mention of the dual. 



> After you marry her, you will discover that you have an exceptionally responsible, industrious wife, who diligently watches after the household. She tries to maintain an ideal cleanliness, so she zealously cleans and washes her house, making it be literally sterile. From time to time you will rearrange the furniture with her, because sometimes she wants a new setting.


Stereotype. Doesn't say anything about the cognition in question.



> Prepare for the fact that grocery shopping with her will not be a light matter. This is because DREISERKA orients poorly when it is necessary to select between two or even more objects. Therefore, instead of standing together with her at the counter and listening to her for half-hour, as she goes back and forth and doubts herself, it is better that you make a decision and relieve her of this need. In the end, there is no difference whether you will purchase a pink kitchen towel or a yellow one. However, DREISERKA is sufficiently low-maintenance and can do with little, such that you won't stumble upon such situations frequently. And also she likes to save money, but does this in an odd manner - she may lose much to save one dollar.


Kind of trying to hint at inferior NT qualities. 



> DREISERKA prefers to cook going by standard recipes, that have been proven by centuries or that she obtained from her mother. She prefers the proven and the reliable to all potential innovations. She also honors traditional holidays; therefore prepare to hold celebrations at your home inviting over her relatives and close friends.


Doesn't say anything in terms of cognition. It's more important to know why she's preferring tradition. There's a hint at Ne PoLR but that itself doesn't mean that the Se type cannot invent on spot. If anything, I think Se types can be fairly inventive in the physical like exploring or discovering new tastes. It would be the Si type that prefers something to taste like prefer, as to perfect that taste experience so they can experience it in its richest and fullest detail. So I think that's actually an incorrect assessment of the ESI. Also, seems like Beskova is confusing quadra values a bit here, because it is also noted that deltas value traditions and holidays as a part of their aristocracy according to some portraits. So value of tradition itself is a meaningless quality in order to express someone's cognition.



> DREISERKA is a restrained and well brought up woman, with a deep sense of self-worth. If you manage to upset or offend her, she will create a stormy, emotional scene, which you will remember for a long time. This way she protects her values and positions in life.


Yeah, doesn't really sound like the ISFJ portrait where most of the focus was spent on getting along with others. 



> She prefers it when everybody in the house lives by her established, inviolable order, which she will, everyday, maintain and reinforce. The joint matters in her family are planned beforehand, because she handles changes of plans poorly. If she has already decided on something, she will always try to adhere to that accepted decision.


This is Te tyranny in a Jungian sense at its finest.



> Story from real life: "If in the evening I prepared clothing for myself, and in the morning of the next day the weather has proven to be not as it was promised, and it was necessary for me to rapidly put on something different, then the entire day can go wrong for me, because my mood was not made to match this new clothing and new weather."


Sounds more like constructivist logic? Doesn't only apply to ESIs. 



> DREISERKAs make for strict, but loving mothers. They require obedience of their children and teach them discipline and order. The physical health of children, the completion of homework, and their friendships will always be under control and strict guidance of DREISERKA. She must know, with whom the child associates, where he went and when he will return. In short, she will try to make it so the intentions of all relatives are transparent and their actions and behaviors are known.


LOL, is it a type 1/CP6 they are describing or an Fi dom? 



> Because of their diligence and assiduity, DREISERKAs can be considered to be reliable co-workers. This is also so because, among all other things, they emotionally invest into their projects. But if the work for DREISERKAs is new, then make sure to give her a thorough set of instructions, how everything needs to be done, otherwise work will not move from a dead halt. It will still be better if she writes down these instructions, the sequence of steps that the job requires. But if she is already well familiar with work, then you should not worry - everything will be done honestly, accurately, and on time.


First portion doesn't say much but a hint at inferior Te towards the end.



> And, nevertheless, on any work, DREISERKAs, first of all, are occupied with people and their problems. Therefore, it will be better, if they choose jobs which are directly connected with people. DREISERKAs make for excellent teachers (especially for the lower grades), educators, nurses, pediatricians, psychologists, correctors, editors and instructors or foreign languages.


Bla bla. Work occupation recs based on type is meaningless. 

A tad better than the ISFJ portrait, tries to relate back a bit better to the system but does so poorly and throws in a lot of needless generalizations that aren't necessarily true for the type but as a whole still fails to capture the actual cognition of the type. Doesn't describe what Fi is for example, how it operates in the psyche. Is implied through this "rigidity" etc as is constantly mentioned, but is not made explicit which is a failure on the description's end, for the same reason it's a failure to imply Si with tradition in the ISFJ portrait without fully revealing as to why there is a relationship at all. 

This is exactly why type descriptions are meaningless to me. They never capture the reality of type. They scratch on the surface layer at best, and some do it a bit better than others, but ultimately they end up describing people archetypes that got nothing to do with the actual cognitive type as much as it relates to persona.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Ok thanks. Well I suppose it's clear that we approach the subject of typology in completely different ways. I come at it with an intuitive understanding of the essence of types. I understand the essence of an isfj. Before I learned about type, I remember reading a book and one of the characters was very similar to my mother. I remember thinking "she's my mother!" obviously not in a literal sense, but archetypally she WAS my mother. So my understanding of the types is locked into this intuitive immediate understanding of who these types are and what makes them tick. It took me about a year to actually understand the functions and what they meant. I learned about mbti first, and got a feel for who the 16 types were. Then I discovered Socionics and I recognised these same characters, only the functions were labelled differently. Not really understanding the functions at the time, I took isfj to equal ISFj, because it was essentially the same essence or archetype. But you seem to come at it from the opposite angle, you seem to have a hard time understanding the types essence and character. 

I think the quadra values might be throwing you off. Some Socionist wrote something about Delta being aristocratic and there's a nasty rumour that we are boring. That's total bolox. If I was boring I'd have no problem admitting it, but a boring enfp? Are you kidding me? We're defined by our love of novelty and dislike of boredom. I was the class clown in school. At parties people beg me not to leave, because when I go the party goes with me. And the bit in the ESI type description about them being strict is a lie too. They're total pushovers. They can't say no to a request. Their Fi won't allow them to boss people around. They use Se to help them push through tasks, not push people around. Socionics is wrong in this aspect. I think mbti does a better job of describing who the types are, since it focuses more on the western idea of the individual. But Socionics has a better understanding of the functions. So the two typologies could marry, if we take the best from both and discard the rest. Just like what happens in any cultural exchange. 
If a theory doesn't match reality, then it's the theory that is at fault, not reality.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

onion said:


> Ok thanks. Well I suppose it's clear that we approach the subject of typology in completely different ways. I come at it with an intuitive understanding of the essence of types. I understand the essence of an isfj. Before I learned about type, I remember reading a book and one of the characters was very similar to my mother. I remember thinking "she's my mother!" obviously not in a literal sense, but archetypally she WAS my mother. So my understanding of the types is locked into this intuitive immediate understanding of who these types are and what makes them tick. It took me about a year to actually understand the functions and what they meant. I learned about mbti first, and got a feel for who the 16 types were. Then I discovered Socionics and I recognised these same characters, only the functions were labelled differently. Not really understanding the functions at the time, I took isfj to equal ISFj, because it was essentially the same essence or archetype. But you seem to come at it from the opposite angle, you seem to have a hard time understanding the types essence and character.


I approach it from the essence of how I see what a type is too, and it's an intuitive understanding of it. I do however not type people based on behavior, appearances, or descriptions, or any of the sort. I discarded the MBTI exactly because it gets hung up on appearance, but it doesn't study the way people operate. I might interact with your mother and maybe I conclude she's an entirely different type than an ESI or an ISFJ. Then what will you do? 



> I think the quadra values might be throwing you off.


No it doesn't. I just mentioned it as an aside thing. I have my own idea of the quadra values, specifically pertaining to aristocracy and democracy and none of them relate to tradition, that's for sure. I just mentioned it for compare and contrast. 



> Some Socionist wrote something about Delta being aristocratic and there's a nasty rumour that we are boring. That's total bolox.


That's subjective based on how others understand the qudra. To me as a gamma, delta is a little boring. It lacks a bit of a spark and energy. 



> If I was boring I'd have no problem admitting it, but a boring enfp? Are you kidding me? We're defined by our love of novelty and dislike of boredom. We're second in line for class clown, behind the esfp. At parties people beg me not to leave, because when I go the party goes with me.


Yeah, but maybe they are Ne-valuing types you know? 



> And the bit in the ESI type description about them being strict is a lie too. They're total pushovers. Their Fi won't allow them to boss people around. They just sit and stew instead. They use Se to help them push through tasks, not push people around. Socionics is wrong in this aspect. I think mbti does a better job of describing who the types are, since it focuses more on the western idea of the individual.


Of course Fi can allow them to boss people around. It depends on what Fi values, their level of health etc. But people can be a part of a task. So to get a task done you sometimes need to push people. 

I think the MBTI does it wrong too. They're no better in terms of generic archetype descriptions that are completely meaningless to me. 



> But Socionics has a better understanding of the functions. So the two typologies could marry, if we take the best from both and discard the rest. Just like what happens in any cultural exchange.


Eu, no. If if you want, go to Jung.

For clarification, this is what I think an ISFJ or an SEI looks like:





This is a stereotype example of SiFe leading.

This is an exaggerated and stereotype ISFP or ESI leading with FiSe:






Do you see how different they are?


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Yes I would recognise a Si, Fe leading type in that cartoon also. So we understand the archetypes, but have a different way of approaching it.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Ok now you've lost me again. Which character in game of thrones are u calling a stereotypical isfp? And how does a stereotypical isfp equal Fi, Se when you say the stereotypes are meaningless to u?


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

onion said:


> So it would be a mistake to take the function order literally to mean you can swap between systems by equating mbti Si with Socionics Si and say that ISTj = ISTP.


No, it wouldn't be a mistake. The recognized MBTI system follows the cognitive functions. I don't understand why one must be treated by the four-letter dichotomy and the other must not be. MBTI was developed on the basis of the cognitive functions and should be recognized as doing so. If not, it is not a Jungian system. If you don't mind taking MBTI as something other than a Jungian system then I understand why you would consider the idea that the Socionics ISTj is not an ISTP. But I look at the two systems through the lens of Jung and the cognitive functions and do not care to interpret them differently.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> I disagree. Two people of the same type or quadra can have an irreconcilable disagreement over theory, perception, or values.


Not really in my quadra. I think Alphas are known to be particularly forgiving. But even if that is true, I guess it still proves your point. It's hard to hear stories like yours though, without me thinking that one of you is mistyped, but I guess that just goes to show the level of bias inherent in the system.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

onion said:


> Hang on there now. He's saying the "south" and lumping the people of the "south" in together, so "all" the south thinks the same does it?


No. Maybe in your literal understanding of what I wrote, but in my understanding of it and how it was intended, unless there is the word "all" in there, I don't mean all people. In fact, I wasn't referring to people in a direct sense at all in the post you quoted. That's why the word "people" doesn't even appear in that post you quoted. Instead I'm merely referring to the "south". Do people live in the south? Yes. Was I speaking about those people living there? No. I was referring to the values of people living in the south, not the people themselves. 

Even if I were referring to people, I would have meant people in general, in a broad categorized sense, where I point out no specific individual or group. I could equally have written "some do and some don't, but people as a whole in a generalized sense do" to convey the same thing, but I honestly thought the implied meaning in what I wrote was obvious enough. Apparently not. And by that I also mean that not every southerner is a delta nor is every delta a southerner, and that every southerner is going to support stereotype southern conservative values. Is that clear enough now? You have a great tendency to always extroject yourself into what someone else is writing assuming they reason like you do and then when you can't make sense of it this way because people after all clearly don't reason like you, you just assume it's dumb and contradictory without value. That's an extremely flawed way of approaching a logical and rational debate, since that's what you intend to do, yes? 



> But to lump people in together is aristocratic? Yet he's an ILI and therefor democratic. How does that even make sense. And there's logic to being a backwards racist is there? ok. So what's the logic behind being a racist? Cos if we are going to make sweeping generalisations about the south, then racist is the general mentality that is perceived by the rest of the world.


It makes sense because my generalized description did not point out any specific group nor any specific individual. I was referring to the south yes, but I wasn't referring to people themselves. It was an abstract and intuitive category I made on spot to convey a grander point I was interested to make. My point was that people may view that particular mentality as delta aristocratic, which by the way, does not mean every aristocrat must hold such views, or for the matter, that democrats cannot hold such views (where have I experienced this discussion before?), but that the specific idea of southern conservatism _is_ aristocratic. Whether a southerner is a delta or harbor such values or not I couldn't care less about. I think people are a bit more unique than that. 



> Yeah, you're right. I don't understand his logic or yours. It's strange that people are coming in here telling me what I'm not understanding. But no one is making an attempt to understand me, except Tainted Streetlight.


Stop with the victim complex please. No one's a victim in that people don't try to understand you. You're hardly good at making yourself clear either. I am far more turned off by the fact you keep misrepresenting my opinion to be something it's not. Stop it. I already told you to stop it. If you can't understand what I am trying to express, don't try to offer an opinion of what I tried to say either. If you can't make sense of it, then just bloody fucking ask wtf I meant with it. That's not so difficult now? 



> And by the way, Aushra herself said that the renein dichotomy would become redundant and it has. It's total bullshit if you open your eyes and look at reality. He's wrong about IEE's and you're wrong and Renein is wrong. IEE's are strong individualsits and see everyone as individuals.


What reality? The reality I see is that Reinin is extremely useful as a tool in order to make sense of type. Decisive-judicious for example, or aristocratic-democratic, or static-dynamic. There are plenty of Reinin I find that make a whole lot of sense to me and really aids me when I am typing other people and I have issues pegging them down or I want to improve my accuracy in my typing. 

By the way, I think I understand IEEs quite well thank you. Not every IEE is going to be a strong individualist and see everyone as individuals. One might actually argue you are failing to do that at this very point right now, because you generalize and assume every IEE is going to be the same as how you describe them here. How is that seeing the individual? It's not. Just because someone is an IEE doesn't mean they all have to be the same except sharing cognition.



Tainted Streetlight said:


> Not really in my quadra. I think Alphas are known to be particularly forgiving. But even if that is true, I guess it still proves your point. It's hard to hear stories like yours though, without me thinking that one of you is mistyped, but I guess that just goes to show the level of bias inherent in the system.


I butt heads with Kanerou once in a while and we disagree on that socionics and the MBTI are two separate theories. I think they're not, she thinks they are. We usually disagree because of differences in rationality-irrationality I think, but just because someone's from your quadra doesn't mean they must get along with you or that you must agree with them. There are plenty of people from my quadra on this forum I am not overly fond of, especially some very flappable ILIs.

Similarly, differences in cognition doesn't mean you can't get along with people from opposing quadras either. I've had very nice and meaningful exchanges with an IEE on another part of this forum for a couple of days now. No problems whatsoever to communicate with her. 

People inflate differences too much. They are only as big as you think they are. Type is only one tiny spectrum of what makes you a human being and is not going to determine the entire outcome of your life and your interpersonal relationships. If that's what you think, you need to rethink what the purpose of the intertype chart is for.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Not really in my quadra. I think Alphas are known to be particularly forgiving. But even if that is true, I guess it still proves your point. It's hard to hear stories like yours though, without me thinking that one of you is mistyped, but I guess that just goes to show the level of bias inherent in the system.


Well, holding long-term grudges like that is pretty Gamma. Of course, I'm now inclined to make sweeping and negative assumptions about his character based on such an irrational outburst and to dislike him in turn due to it, especially after his subsequent attempt at playing the benevolent moral character right afterward ("Well, if you don't remember it, maybe you'll learn from it for the future") and then trying to tell me the whole thing no longer mattered (yet he brought it up while insulting me in such a manner. I call bullshit). I have no reason to doubt his self-typing, but I no longer want anything more than a neutral association with him; any social niceties will feel fake and will be ignored.

I do think that arguments can sometimes uncover a probable mistype, such as a self-professed ILI I've encountered who constantly bitched at me in a conversation about how I couldn't "read between the lines" and who used *angry red text* to tell me what an irritating, narrow-minded, judgmental bitch I am who clearly never introspects about her own faults and who is excessively unreasonable, blah blah blah. (God, that was amusing. I still can't bring myself to be angry at him over that pile of irrational emotional vomit.) In a case like that, he strikes me as more likely Fe valuing because of the nature of his complaints rather than the fact that we conflicted or that he pisses me the hell off in many ways. Anyway... perhaps this sort of thing is more apparent with Beta and Gamma due to the confrontational nature of Se.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

You're saying southerners values are the same as the people who are delta. And I'm telling you that delta people don't have conservative values. Deltas value Ne. Ne by definition values change. IEE's need novelty as much as ISTJ's need order. 

Your inability to connect the dots of what I am saying points to weak Ne. What I'm saying is really quite simple. And i am quite clear in what i am saying. I'm not talking in convuluted contradictory ways like you are. Your subjective logic, and failure to realise it is not my understanding of your thinking that is wrong, but your thinking that is completely ignoring reality. And is causing you to come to the wrong conclusions. There is no way you could possibly be strong in Te, objective logic. To be objective means to take truth from observable reality. You are taking truth to be your own thinking. And you are accusing me of not understanding your unique way of thinking. You're an istj, I'd bet. Definitely Ti valuing. That's too obvious. Don't even attempt to deny it. If you can't even type yourself correctly, then you are not an authority on the subject. 

The enfp forum is crawling with enfj's. Whoever that girl you were talking to on the enfp forum is, I can guarantee you she was not really an enfp.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

absyrd said:


> No, it wouldn't be a mistake. The recognized MBTI system follows the cognitive functions. I don't understand why one must be treated by the four-letter dichotomy and the other must not be. MBTI was developed on the basis of the cognitive functions and should be recognized as doing so. If not, it is not a Jungian system. If you don't mind taking MBTI as something other than a Jungian system then I understand why you would consider the idea that the Socionics ISTj is not an ISTP. But I look at the two systems through the lens of Jung and the cognitive functions and do not care to interpret them differently.


Let's say there's two cops. One is by the book, the other is a renegade who breaks the rules to bring the bad guys down. One's an istj, the other's an istp. Which one is which?


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

onion said:


> Let's say there's two cops. One is by the book, the other is a renegade who breaks the rules to bring the bad guys down. One's an istj, the other's an istp. Which one is which?


In MBTI the one by the book is the ISTJ and in Socionics it is the ISTp.
The renegade who breaks the rules to bring the bad guys down is an ISTP in MBTI and ISTj in Socionics.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

onion said:


> You're saying southerners values are the same as the people who are delta. And I'm telling you that delta people don't have conservative values. Deltas value Ne. Ne by definition values change. IEE's need novelty as much as ISTJ's need order.
> 
> Your inability to connect the dots of what I am saying points to weak Ne. What I'm saying is really quite simple. And i am quite clear in what i am saying. I'm not talking in convuluted contradictory ways like you are. Your subjective logic, and failure to realise it is not my understanding of your thinking that is wrong, but your thinking that is completely ignoring reality. And is causing you to come to the wrong conclusions. There is no way you could possibly be strong in Te, objective logic. To be objective means to take truth from observable reality. You are taking truth to be your own thinking. And you are accusing me of not understanding your unique way of thinking. You're an istj, I'd bet. Definitely Ti valuing. That's too obvious. Don't even attempt to deny it. If you can't even type yourself correctly, then you are not an authority on the subject.
> 
> The enfp forum is crawling with enfj's. Whoever that girl you were talking to on the enfp forum is, I can guarantee you she was not really an enfp.


1: Again, you fail to address me by quoting me. Why is that difficult? I find it extremely passive aggressive to have an opinion on someone else's post and misconstruing their position by not understanding it and yet refusing to actually quote or mention them. Extremely dishonest way of having a debate, if I could even call it such. 

2. I spent two entire paragraphs explaining my position and you _still_ think I am claiming that southern values are the same as delta?! Give me a fucking break. The extremely simple answer to that is NO. I couldn't give a fuck for the values themselves. They are irrelevant. It's why people adopt those values that _is_ important, and how those values are expressed and formulated within people's psyches. This is as intuitive as you'd get and you don't fucking get this. 

3. Speaking of mistypes and accusing me of being an LSI, actually, I think the problem is that _you_ seem to be a mistype. You strike me as a sensor with Ni in superego and have been for the past couple of posts where you don't seem to be able to grasp a single intuitive concept thrown at you. Just because I have a conflict with you in this manner doesn't mean you are correctly typed and I'm not, so I'm the one who must be mistyped. I am very sure I am an ILI, and independent observers agree with my typing as well. See, this is a Te conclusion. 

4. Te is not the same as referring to "observable reality". That's not how Te operates at all. Te draws conclusions from facts and external logical systems. Anything referring to "observable reality" tends to fall within the lines of sensation. Te and also Ti, do not observe. They draw conclusions. Very different.

5. The most obvious thing about me if someone actually understands the system somewhat and know me well is that I'm a hardcore Fi-valuer to the point some think I could be an EII. See, that was Te, referring to general logical principles, systems and facts. 

6. Why assume it was the ENFP forum? Guess what, you're wrong. It wasn't. It wasn't any type forum at all, but a forum I keep personal interest in because it's personally relevant to me. We agree on many subjects because it aligns with our common Fi-Te and our Fi values value similar things. She has no problem understanding me and I don't have issues understanding her either. Communication is very smooth. You want to know what an EIE or ENFJ looks like? Here's one:






If you think this guy's my dual then I'm sorry to say but I don't find this attractive at all. This kind of behavior when noted in other people doesn't make me jizz in my pants by any means, and too much and it becomes really fucking obnoxious. This is still expressed at a level that is somewhat tolerable. 

In contrast, this is my dual (Mugen). Notice the little gasp he does just before he imagines what his friends will do? That's Fi and that's such a big big turn on you can't imagine:






7. I'll tell you what I think in a very simple way for you to understand: I think you're the mistype. This creates so much confusion for you especially when understanding and applying the system in an intuitive way that you actually can't do it. You've been told by 3 different Ni types about the Ni perspective of understanding aristocracy-democracy (look at that pretty Te I used expressed). You still don't understand it and you simplify it to what you can observe. That's Si in ego, not Ne, which becomes even more obvious when you keep calling out for this need to study observable reality. It's a need to ground back to sensation. I've had plenty of conversations with Ne ego types, both alpha and delta, and you know what? None of them have been as painful in terms of trying to make sense of myself as this one. The only time I ever actually run into the problem of being unable to express myself even in a modicum level of sense like in this discussion here is with alpha SFs. They keep calling out they are misunderstood and people don't understand them in the manner that you are doing here. 

At some level I think an intuitive lead that you claim to be would have no problem actually understanding what I'm trying to express because intuition is still intuition, even if your understanding of it is going to differ from mine. I think it's rather telling the only person who you claim seems to understand or try to understand you is an ILE.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

onion said:


> You're saying southerners values are the same as the people who are delta. And I'm telling you that delta people don't have conservative values. Deltas value Ne. Ne by definition values change. IEE's need novelty as much as ISTJ's need order.


Wow, so much stereotyping on a few statements and so much issues on understanding intuitive concepts. You're still ignoring that deltas value Si, even if it's weaker on the NFs. 
By the way I noticed that you seemed to run out of arguments because you never replied to my second post where I explained some characteristics that I've noticed in the XNFPs that I know IRL, well then, I forgot to mention that my mother has the tendency of spotting the potential of others, to the point that she recommended to one friend to study law, even if he wasn't too interested in that area and it was only because my mom thinks that he has good skills for that career. Finding out potentials in people and then generalizing it to whole groups is a form of being aristocratic, so if you still think that IEEs see people as individuals then you're missing completely that they see others in that way, which rings aristocratic to me. Still I highly doubt that you will grasp this information.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

onion said:


> Your inability to connect the dots of what I am saying points to weak Ne. What I'm saying is really quite simple. And i am quite clear in what i am saying. I'm not talking in convuluted contradictory ways like you are.


I don't know. I would say you are contradicting yourself when you talk about how ENFPs are all individuals who wouldn't hold conservative values. Because that is rather generalizing. If you, as an ENFP (who are supposed to value individuality), keeps stereotyping like that, it doesn't quite add up.



ephemereality said:


> In contrast, this is my dual (Mugen). Notice the little gasp he does just before he imagines what his friends will do? That's Fi and that's such a big big turn on you can't imagine


Lol, good to know.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

onion said:


> Deltas value Ne. Ne by definition values change. IEE's need novelty as much as ISTJ's need order.


Some of the stereotypes of MBTI and Socionics overlap, too. (I also looked on one of the sections of Wikisocion that go right in line with this statement).

I think the main problem with this thread is it's trying to complicate something much more than what it's really supposed to be. Yes, type profiles will be different but since those are behavioral, they're the least helpful aspect of finding the type anyway. I mostly get that different things are emphasized on what are mostly the same things. I'm almost getting the impression that you're nit picking for the sake of it.


----------



## Mumla (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm Russian and I know about socionics almost everything (it's my hobby since 2008).


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

absyrd said:


> In MBTI the one by the book is the ISTJ and in Socionics it is the ISTp.
> The renegade who breaks the rules to bring the bad guys down is an ISTP in MBTI and ISTj in Socionics.


ISTj: 

As children ISTjs are very often obedient, docile, responsible and respectful. 
When they buy new appliances they always read the manual before using them even if the operations are obvious. 
LSIs are often arduous producers of logical structures, models, principles, rules, and order. In general, their lifestyle is at least partly organized according to the rules they impute to the world, which are paramount to their experiences. They may typically tend to conceptualize the world around them in terms of fixed categories, and can exhibit well-developed preferences for one category of things over another. 
*LSIs can also sometimes be sticklers for minutiae in rule-based systems; they may have little sympathy or leeway for those individuals who require exemptions (along the lines of "no, sir, this bus must leave exactly at 7:30"). more likely to confront others in contravention of the "rules" or some other rule-based system.*
Takes all regulations into account. He is a supporter of cohesion and organization and does not like deviations and discord. He does not like fantasy and improvisation. His business activity can lacking in dynamism due to his inclination to think and analyze first.Uncompromising, but compensates for this by strong sense of purpose and perseverance. Interaction with subordinates often takes form of "trainer - students." Independent initiative is not supported. Cannot tolerate jobs that require hurry, urgency, constant changes of plans. When he is rushed and required to rapidly change his course of action, may flare up with anger. You are characterized by a desire for order, discipline, clear rules and regulations.


Recomendations for self improvement: 

One of your main problems - lack of confidence in situations that require breaking the established views without clear prospects, distrust of unexpected ideas and proposals that require rejection of past values.
Do not seek to prove yourself by following every regulation and instruction, however obsolete.


Socionics - the16types.info - ISTj The Inspector profile by Gulenko


Socionics Types: LSI-ISTj

Logical-Sensory Intratim - ISTj (The Pragmatist)



ISTJs are quiet and reserved individuals who are interested in security and peaceful living. They have a strongly-felt internal sense of duty, which lends them a serious air and the motivation to follow through on tasks. Organized and methodical in their approach, they can generally succeed at any task which they undertake.

ISTJs are very loyal, faithful, and dependable. They place great importance on honesty and integrity. They are "good citizens" who can be depended on to do the right thing for their families and communities. While they generally take things very seriously, they also usually have an offbeat sense of humor and can be a lot of fun - especially at family or work-related gatherings.

ISTJs tend to believe in laws and traditions, and expect the same from others. They're not comfortable with breaking laws or going against the rules. If they are able to see a good reason for stepping outside of the established mode of doing things, the ISTJ will support that effort. However, ISTJs more often tend to believe that things should be done according to procedures and plans. If an ISTJ has not developed their Intuitive side sufficiently, they may become overly obsessed with structure, and insist on doing everything "by the book". 

ISTJ Personal Growth

What does Success mean to an ISTJ?

People with the ISTJ personality type are serious, methodical, analytical, and hard-working. They store knowledge gained from their experiences, and use this knowledge to tackle new problems and ideas. They will work a problem through to its identified conclusion. They work towards defined goals; their analytical objectivity gives them the tendency to make goal-oriented decisions that are not waylaid by the concerns of individuals. They're uncomfortable with ideas that are completely new to them, or that are totally theoretical in nature. Since they have no direct experience with the new concept, they have no tools for knowing how to deal with it or what to think about it. They need to get the framework for a new concept before they're able to deal with it. An experienced ISTJ is usually a very capable person, and makes an excellent manager. ISTJs have great value for the "tried and true" approach, and are reluctant to adopt new systems until direct experience proves the validity of the new system. They internalize and value the rules and structure of the society in which they live, and disapprove of behaviors that go against these rules. ISTJs highly value the cornerstone institutions of society such as Family, Work, and Church. Their hard-working, dedicated nature is especially well-suited for holding up such institutions. An ISTJ's feeling of success depends upon being able to use their experience for the benefit of an institution, and also upon the level of structure and lack of chaos in their life, and in the health and welfare of their family or other social structure.

Allowing Your ISTJ Strengths to Flourish

As an ISTJ, you have gifts that are specific to your personality type that aren't natural strengths for other types. By recognizing your special gifts and encouraging their growth and development, you will more readily see your place in the world, and be more content with your role.

Nearly all ISTJs will recognize the following characteristics in themselves. They should embrace and nourish these strengths:

Their desire to execute known systems against concrete facts makes them happy to chunk through large amounts of routine work.
With their respect for rules and order, they value honesty and integrity and seek to live with these ideals.
An ISTJ has a "stick to it" attitude. They're not afraid of hard work, and will put forth a great deal of effort towards something that they are interested in. This persistence will help the ISTJ to achieve any identified goal.
The ISTJ's value for social structure makes them more interested in being social than is true for many Introverts.

ISTJs who have developed their Extraverted Thinking will complement their interest in their inner world of concrete data with an interest in the welfare of the rest of the world, especially with regards to upholding social systems and traditions. These ISTJs enjoy these very special gifts:

They will move beyond an expectation that others should follow rules into a dedication and willingness to work hard to uphold standards themselves.
They show a dedication to maintaining personal relationships that lends them a respect for individual differences.
They will use their inner store of facts for the benefit of an institution or society in general, rather than to satisfy their own interests.
The more they develop their Extraverted Thinking, the better they will become at strategizing. They will be able to brainstorm multiple possible solutions to problems.
ISTJs are often uncomfortable with decisions based on values rather than on objective criteria, but the more they develop their Extraverted Thinking, the more likely they will become able to use Introverted Feeling as a positive force rather than strictly a negative one. This will allow them to understand a value judgement that is based on personal perspective rather than social obligation.


Potential Problem Areas

With any gift of strength, there is an associated weakness. Without "bad", there would be no "good". Without "difficult", there would be no "easy". We value our strengths, but we often curse and ignore our weaknesses. To grow as a person and get what we want out of life, we must not only capitalize upon our strengths, but also face our weaknesses and deal with them. That means taking a hard look at our personality type's potential problem areas.

Most of the weaker characteristics that are found in ISTJs are due to their dominant Introverted Sensing function controlling the personality to the point that all other functions are being used to defend Sensing demands, rather than for their more balanced purposes. In such cases, an ISTJ may show some or all of the following weaknesses in varying degrees:

Excessive love of food and drink
Lack of interest in other people, or in relating to them
Occasional inappropriate emotional displays
General selfish "look after oneself" tendencies
Uses judgement to dismiss other's opinions and perspectives, before really understanding them
May judge others rather than themselves
May look at external ideas and people with the primary purpose of finding fault
May become slave to their routine and "by the book" ways of doing things, to the point that any deviation is completely unacceptable
May have difficulty communicating their thoughts and feelings to anyone


Explanation of Problems

Nearly all of the problematic characteristics described above can be attributed in various degrees to the common ISTJ problem of Introverted Sensing overtaking the ISTJ's personality to the point that all other functions become slaves to Introverted Sensing. A more "whole" personality needs to have a good balance between its dominant and auxiliary functions. For an ISTJ, the dominant Introverted Sensing needs to be well-supported by the auxiliary Extraverted Thinking function. If Extraverted Thinking exists only to support the desires of Introverted Sensing, than neither function is being used to its potential.

Introverted Sensing is a personality function that constantly gathers data and stores it in a sort of informational database to be accessed at will in the future. As the dominant player in a personality, it has the effect of constantly bombarding the psyche with facts to store. As something new is perceived, it is added to the vast warehouse of Introverted Sensing data. Introverted Sensing does not in itself analyze this data for meaning or connection--it just takes it in as information. In order to sort through and make use of this information, a judging function must be applied. It is the judging function that does the analysis and ordering of the data.

When Introverted Sensing is too dominant, or Extraverted Thinking is not developed sufficiently, we see the ISTJ using Extraverted Thinking to order the individual's world in such a way that Introverted Sensing can reign without interference. This may include dismissing the importance of relationships, or pushing away anything that threatens the ISTJ's highly introverted way of life. In this manner, Extraverted Thinking is used against the external world, rather than against the ISTJ's internal data. It is a defensive shield, rather than a useful filter.

The better, more "whole" use of Extraverted Thinking for the ISTJ would be to use it to order and evaluate its own rich store of data, and therefore generate useful solutions to problems and efficient systems. Like all types, most ISTJs will show some signs of this kind of weakness. This does not mean that they're hopelessly flawed. The real problems occur when an ISTJ personality has become so imbalanced that its owner is extremely selfish and unable to consider the importance or validity of anyone else's perspective.

Solutions

To grow as an individual, the ISTJ needs to focus on applying their judgement against information that they have gathered, rather than against single facts or ideas coming from others. Before judging, put all new data into the context of existing facts. Working with all of the facts at your disposal will greatly improve your ability to judge effectively, and will reduce the likelihood that you will become offensively reactionary and isolationist.

An ISTJ who is concerned with personal growth will pay close attention to the subject of ther judgments, and their motivations for making judgments. Are they judging something external to themself, or are they judging something within the context of their stored knowledge? Is the motivation for judging something to be able to understand its usefulness in the world, or to dismiss it? Too often, an ISTJ will judge something without properly understanding it, and with the intention of dismissing it. Seek first to understand, then to judge.

Living Happily in our World as an ISTJ

People of all personality types sometimes experience problems dealing with specific aspects of civilization and human interaction. For the ISTJ, problems are generally associated with being unable to tolerate behaviors that go outside perceived norms, and with not putting forth effort to meet others' emotional needs. These problems stem from building up the importance of the ISTJ's inner world and diminishing the importance of the external world. ISTJs who recognize that their knowledge and experience can be enriched by the synergy of other people's knowledge and experience will find that they can be committed to their internal worlds and still have satisfying relationships with others. The key to accomplishing this is development of their highest extraverted function, Extraverted Thinking.

An ISTJ who uses Extraverted Thinking to find fault externally rather than internally may become so strongly opinionated that they form rigid and unreasonable expectations of others. Their hyper-vigilant judgments about the rationality and competence of others may be a very effective way of keeping themselves at an emotional distance from others. This will preserve the sanctity of the ISTJ's inner world and lifestyle, but will reduce a lot of valuable input, arrest the development of their social character, and stagnate the development of the ISTJ's rich store of experiential data. In extreme cases the ISTJ may find him or herself quite alone and lonely.

More commonly, the ISTJ will run into trouble when they try to order and structure the outer world, rather than their inner world. Trying to structure people into a predefined, acceptable system is problematic. The personality types who value the unique individual will be offended by the apparent lack of respect for their person, and people with personality types who follow social values will want to be honoring their own system, rather then being forced to follow yours. Many people experience being controlled or manipulated as a form of suppression, and resist it. Eventually, they may harbor serious resentment against the suppressor.

Specific suggestions:

Take care to listen to someone's idea entirely before you pass judgment on it. Ask questions if necessary. Do whatever it takes to make sure that you understand the idea. Try not to begin judging anything until you understand the details.
Try to identify the personality type of everyone you encounter frequently in your life. Remember that Intuitives often have a wandering style of expression. Try to exhibit tolerance for this.
Before you being talking to another person, pause for a moment and look at that person. Take in that person's attitude and feelings at that moment. Be aware of the person with whom you are speaking. 

Ten Rules to Live By to Achieve ISTJ Success

Feed Your Strengths! Do things that allow your excellent organizational and logical abilities to flourish. Explore the worlds of business management, accounting, and medicine.
Face Your Weaknesses! See your weaknesses for what they are, and seek to overcome them. Especially, strive to use your judgment against your internal store of knowledge, rather than as a means of disregarding other people's ideas.
Talk Through Your Thoughts. You need to step through your vast amount of information in order to put things into perspective. Give yourself appropriate time to do this, and take advantage of discussing ideas with others. Some find that externalizing your thoughts is a valuable exercise, as is expressing your ideas clearly in writing.
Take in Everything. Don't dismiss ideas prematurely because you don't respect the person generating the ideas, or because you think you already know it all. After all, everybody has something to offer, and nobody knows everything. As Steven Covey says, "Seek first to understand, and then to be understood."
Quench Your Desire to Control Others. Remember that most people do not want to be controlled. Again, turn your controlling tendencies inwardly rather than outwardly. You can only really control yourself.
Be Aware of Others. Take time to notice where others are coming from. What is their personality type? How are they currently feeling?
Be Accountable for Yourself. Don't blame the problems in your life on other people. Look inwardly for solutions.
Be Gentle in Your Expectations, and judge yourself at least as harshly as you judge others.
Assume the Best. Don't distress yourself and others by dwelling on the dark side of everything. Just as there is a positive charge for every negative charge, there is a light side to every dark side. Remember that positive situations are created by positive attitudes, and vice versa. Expect the best, and the best will come forward.
There is Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself. Sometimes it's necessary to take a risk to initiate change. Don't be afraid to do so when that time comes. In most cases, the obstacles and burdens standing in the way of your goal are not really there--they just exist in your perspective. 






ISTp: 

ISTps have their own convictions that they will usually follow, even if they are different from common norms and moralities.
ISTps also have a great deal of persistence which probably comes from their stubbornness giving them a reputation as obstinate, rebellious people and even delinquents when young. He might totally ignore or blow off some obligations. They might also ignore necessary obligations, because they are too busy taking care of themselves and their comforts. ISTps always attempt to be fair and objective. They try to see what is actually there, and see things in terms of facts and evidence. They don’t like to accept something just because it is a commonly held belief. SLIs often feel a need to maintain some amount of autonomy over their lifestyles so that they are not bound by others' schedules or demands. They generally dislike hurriedness and prefer to operate on their own terms.SLIs can be largely oblivious to social conventions. They generally do not try to follow the crowd unless there is some practical reason to do so. They are often quite individualistic; they do not naturally seek the approval of others and are mostly self-subsistent in their activities.
ISTps actively seek excitement and thrive on the rush of adrenaline. SLIs are not usually extensively focused on power politics or hierarchies. He likes to first try out different things, to experiment, so that he better senses the possibilities of forthcoming work.
He loves to work completely autonomously, independently, so that he wouldn't have to adapt himself to anyone else. Nonconformity. Men and women who have the Adventurous personality style live by their own internal code of values. They are not strongly influenced by other people or by the norms of society. Challenge. To live is to dare. Adventurers love the thrill of risk and routinely engage in high-risk activities. In their childhood and adolescence, people with the Adventurous personality style were usually high-spirited hell-raisers and mischief makers. Although GABIN is lazy, he will never become penniless. Moreover, the work, which he selects for himself, is usually something serious, that requires from him both high level of professional skill and expertise, and ability to make independent decisions. Both of these qualities are usually present in abundance in him. Independent. In an emergency situation, he doesn't panic but looks for ways to buy time. Follows and orients by his inner impressions to the external events. Opposes bureaucracy and detailed control. Flexibly adapts to changes in specifics while adhering to the overarching plan.
In a dangerous situation behaves in a cool, dispassionate manner. Warnings of danger don't evoke fear in him rather an interest and a desire to test himself. Being ordered around as a form of communication for him does not exist: he will do as he sees fit.His inclination to hierarchical leadership is barely expressed. One of the main defining aspects of his logic is adaptability to circumstances. *The correct course of action for him is suggested by the reality itself, not by a dogmatized scheme, instructions or regulations.*

Socionics - the16types.info - ISTp The Craftsman profile by Gulenko

Socionics - the16types.info - ISTp description by Filatova


Ten Rules to Live By to Achieve ISTP Success

Feed Your Strengths! Realize your gift at mastering your physical environment, and give yourself plenty of opportunities to exercise your abilities. Ride, play, paint, work it. Much of your sense of well-being will come from these experiences.
Face Your Weaknesses! Face your fear of the unknown, and get yourself into new situations. Experience new activities and people with new perspectives. Don't isolate yourself into a narrow and lonely existence.
Talk About Your Thoughts. Discussing your ideas and perceptions with others will help you to develop your Extraverted Sensing, and thus your understanding of the world. How well you use your auxiliary function is very important to your overall health and happiness.
Don't Be Afraid to Love. That's just your old inferior function trying to convince you that you're unloved and unloveable. It's not true. Just because you're not sure what to do with yourself doesn't mean that you can't learn! Go on... jump in. The water's warm.
Respect Your Need for Action. Understand that you need to be actively working with your environment to be "in the groove" with life. Don't chastise yourself for not being the sort to sit around and read a book or watch a movie. Choose a partner and companions who value active lifestyles.
*Recognize Social Principles. Realize that our society functions around some basic social principles, and that our society would fail unless those principles are recognized and upheld. In a democracy, people vote. At a red stoplight, people stop. If people stopped voting because it wasn't important to their own way of life, who would be in power? If people stopped stopping at red stop lights because it didn't fit into their way of life, how could we drive safely? Your priorities and beliefs are important, but you must recognize that the external world's agenda is also important. Don't dismiss the importance of principles that don't affect your life directly.*
It's OK to Get Out of your Comfort Zone. Understand that the only way to grow is to get outside of your comfort zone. If you're uncomfortable with an idea or situation because you're not sure how to act, that's good! That's an opportunity for growth.
Identify and Express Your Feelings. You may have a hard time figuring out exactly how you feel about someone that you're involved with. It's important that you do figure this out. Don't lead someone on with your ambivalence. If you determine that you value the person, tell them so every time you think of it. This is the best way to make them feel secure in your affections, and so to promote a long-lasting relationship.
Be Aware of Others. Try to really identify where people are coming from. Their ideas, thoughts and priorities are differents from yours. They have something to offer you. Try to identify their personality types.
Assume the Best. Don't distress yourself with fear and dark imaginings. Expect the best, and the best will come. 




Can people here just spend 5 minutes considering the possibility that mbti correctly identified these archetypes, but messed up when they interpreted the function order of the introverts. It would really save a lot of time. The archetype of the by the book cop and the renegade, can be seen in countless movies. They are easy to identify. It's a familiar theme.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)




----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

ENFP- 

They're often deep and intelligent, and may be quite brilliant in their ability to tie things together. They're wired to look for connections in the external world, and so may mentally put things together more easily than many.

ENFP Personal Growth


Yeah. That's what enfp's do.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

onion said:


> Can people here just spend 5 minutes considering the possibility that mbti correctly identified these archetypes, but messed up when they interpreted the function order of the introverts. It would really save a lot of time. The archetype of the by the book cop and the renegade, can be seen in countless movies. They are easy to identify. It's a familiar theme.


If you're going to do this, do it with the functions and IE's compared, not with the archetypes. 

If you're saying that the ISTJ and ISTj are the same thing but that the ISTJ's functions are mis-ordered I might agree with that to some extent, but in the case of ISTJ the MBTI archetype doesn't always line up with the functional archetype either. And since socionics is more dependent on IE's/Jung, that's probably a better way to compare the two types.


Generally speaking, archetypes in socionics are shit. People step in them without looking, and spread.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@onion Is the huge-ass text really necessary? It comes off as you beginning to break down and screaming at people, which isn't particularly good for your overall perception when you are trying to convince people of something.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

And yes I can see the logic in that both systems are based on jungs cognitive functions, so they should b the same, but they are not because the functions are interpreted differently in both systems, so they don't match up for this reason. Mbti shows a poor understanding of the functions. This will be apparent to everyone in due time. I'm not in the least bit emotional. I am quite confident in the truth of what I am saying. 


And yes the lengthy reply was necessary to show that the istj and ISTj are clearly the by the book cop, while the renegade is the istp and ISTp. If people still can't see it, then it's not my problem. I have better things to do with my time that argue with people who can't see what is plainly obvious. There's some very good advice in the istj personal growth section of my reply. I hope istj's reading it will take it on board. That's it from me now. I'm not going to repeat myself any more. If people don't want to consider what I have explained, then that's their choice. They can continue on fumbling their way through this and argue with people if they like. They're the ones wasting their time, not me.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Figure said:


> If you're going to do this, do it with the functions and IE's compared, not with the archetypes.
> 
> If you're saying that the ISTJ and ISTj are the same thing but that the ISTJ's functions are mis-ordered I might agree with that to some extent, but in the case of ISTJ the MBTI archetype doesn't always line up with the functional archetype either. And since socionics is more dependent on IE's/Jung, that's probably a better way to compare the two types.
> 
> ...


That's what I'm saying. The istj mbti archetype doesn't match the functional archetype. The function order is wrong. The socionics ISTj archetype DOES match the functional archetype.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

Ok now I'm done. I have things to do. This has taken up too much of my time already.


----------

