# Which Function is the Hiden Agenda?



## L P (May 30, 2017)

I'm trying to tie MBTI and socionics together but sometimes it's confusing.

Which function in the top four MBTI stack is the socionics hidden agenda?

Is it the 4th or the 3rd functions form MBTI?


----------



## Errant (Sep 7, 2014)

According to the mbti stacking order, it would be your third valued function. So I'm an eii and an infp in mbti. My hidden agenda function is si, or the desire "to be healthy".


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

None. That is false equivalency.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

^How is it false equivalency?

Hidden Agenda is the 2D valued function. So if your valued functions (like the cognitive function stack) are Fi(4D) Ne(3D) Si(2D) Te(1D) which is EII then Si is the hidden agenda. 

2D means two dimensional. You could look it up because I don't exactly know what it means  Basically it's not that strong or natural for an EII

Fi and Ne are strong and valued
Si and Te and weak and valued
And the other four functions are not valued. 

I haven't really studied hidden agenda because it doesn't seem very accurate/useful. Like Si hidden agenda was "to be healthy" or Fi hidden agenda was "to be loved" which seems simplistic.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

@Wisteria

Stating that functional stacking in MBTI is Model A is false equivalency. Not only is such false equivalency, but stating that MBTI functions are socionics information elements is equivocation. Similarly, stating that one's own self-chosen functional stack is one's MBTI type, rather than the type which is assessed by the inventory as the definition of MBTI type, is also equivocation on the grounds of the term "MBTI type" by cherry-picking a minority case of information available on MBTI, being the cognitive functions, rather than the overwhelming evidence that MBTI type is an inventory, further increased by the confirmation bias of individuals who reduce their own personal information sources to those who agree with their fallacious arguments.

Even barring such fallacious statements concerning MBTI and Socionics, studies have been done which show contrary to MBTI functional stack being equal to Socionics Model A's ordering of valued functions by dimensionality based upon self-reported self-identification with MBTI type and Socionics type.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

DavidH said:


> @Wisteria
> 
> Stating that functional stacking in MBTI is Model A is false equivalency. Not only is such false equivalency, but stating that MBTI functions are socionics information elements is equivocation. Similarly, stating that one's own self-chosen functional stack is one's MBTI type, rather than the type which is assessed by the inventory as the definition of MBTI type, is also equivocation on the grounds of the term "MBTI type" by cherry-picking a minority case of information available on MBTI, being the cognitive functions, rather than the overwhelming evidence that MBTI type is an inventory, further increased by the confirmation bias of individuals who reduce their own personal information sources to those who agree with their fallacious arguments.
> 
> Even barring such fallacious statements concerning MBTI and Socionics, studies have been done which show contrary to MBTI functional stack being equal to Socionics Model A's ordering of valued functions by dimensionality based upon self-reported self-identification with MBTI type and Socionics type.


I don't think they correlate either. Even the functional stack and mbti dichotomies don't align with eachother because of the P/J axis. But it's useful to use one's knowledge of the functional stack as a framework to use when learning socionics to begin with. Some argue that it only makes learning socionics more confusing, but for me it was useful. If cognitive functions had the same definitions as the socionics ones, the information elements, then they would be equivalent.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

@Wisteria

There is an inherent error in that approach. To do such, you must first deny the objectivity of what MBTI is and what MBTI is not. MBTI is an inventory of an individuals preferences and the subsequent division of individuals into groups with the similarities between individuals provided as a generalized description of the groups. As such, the preferences of individuals are subject to change based upon changes in the individuals' environments and the emotional stability of the individuals. It is not a constant. It is an objective viewpoint of individuals in a given environment at a given time. The system originator later attempted to extrapolate constants the groups to create a consistent framework for the explanation of her own chosen divisions of individuals, but failed to do such, due to the MBTI itself not measuring constants. Following such, individuals then began to interpolate their own placement within the structure that the originator attempted to extrapolate. This alone is false equivalency, equivocation, and cherry-picking.

An individual's MBTI type is subject to change. This is fact.

Socionics' originators chose a different route. The originators extrapolated a structure from their own perceived static traits generalized into a division. They then interpolated the perceived static characteristics of divisions other than their own on the basis of their own perceived similarities and differences as generalizations. Following such, they began interpolating individuals into their structure of their own viewpoint of divisions of perceived static personality traits. To rectify the dissonance of the reality that personalities change over time, and are not static, they generalized the remaining components of personality into biology and subjective life experiences. By doing such, the only remaining factor of personality which is not discounted from being within the scope of application of socionics is the environment the individual(s) exist within.

The two systems not only do not correlate, but they also attempt to explain different basic aspects of personality.

MBTI is present emotional outlook. Socionics is static environment.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

DavidH said:


> @Wisteria
> 
> There is an inherent error in that approach. To do such, you must first deny the objectivity of what MBTI is and what MBTI is not. MBTI is an inventory of an individuals preferences and the subsequent division of individuals into groups with the similarities between individuals provided as a generalized description of the groups. As such, the preferences of individuals are subject to change based upon changes in the individuals' environments and the emotional stability of the individuals. It is not a constant. It is an objective viewpoint of individuals in a given environment at a given time. The system originator later attempted to extrapolate constants the groups to create a consistent framework for the explanation of her own chosen divisions of individuals, but failed to do such, due to the MBTI itself not measuring constants. Following such, individuals then began to interpolate their own placement within the structure that the originator attempted to extrapolate. This alone is false equivalency, equivocation, and cherry-picking.
> 
> ...


This reminds me of the thread I made about MBTI being situational. Most didn't agree, saying that confusion with your MBTI changing is just a lack of self awareness. I don't see MBTI as this static thing either, because as your life changes your preferences will change to what you currently need to be. However, the extroversion/introversion dichotomy probably never changes.

IMO a person who identifies as ENTJ could easily be like an SEE in socionics. This type of things is likely, I don't disagree with that. However, someone who as looking into the cognitive functions from a Jungian perspective and not an MBTI is probably likely to have a similar socionics type.

Also are you Fried Eggz btw? The resemblance is uncanny, but maybe it's because you're both LSI.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

@Wisteria There's nothing for them to disagree with. What they are stating concerning MBTI is a fallacy. MBTI is a personality assessment, and the results of such are subject to change. That is a fact. Plain and simple. They wish for MBTI to be something that it is not, so they resort to fallacious arguments. Due to these characteristics of these individuals, it is probable that they are in need of counseling, medication, or a change of scenery. Healthy individuals will see MBTI for that which it is, that which it is not, accept such, and move along. Extroversion/introversion is likely the most stable aspect, because it requires the most significant changes in lifestyle.

Sometimes people just look for reaffirmation of their own sense of validation, so misusing seemingly similar systems to support such is neither correct, healthy, nor surprising.

Hahahaha. No. It is probably a combination of type, age, lack of differentiation, and state of environment. I've been speaking more in this manner, due to the apparent lack of grounded and common sense present. I'll try and be less of a buzz kill in the future hahaha.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

DavidH said:


> MBTI is a personality assessment, and the results of such are subject to change. That is a fact. Plain and simple.


It has been developed as a career research tool, not as an accurate reflection of anyone's personality. 



DavidH said:


> They wish for MBTI to be something that it is not, so they resort to fallacious arguments.


It's not "they" - it's MBTI that wants to be something that it's not.



DavidH said:


> MBTI is present emotional outlook.


The primary building blocks of MBTI have always been cognitive functions, not emotions. Socionics will also tell you about emotional outlook of types, EIEs for example, but these are secondary observable traits and not their foundation.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Lord Pixel said:


> I'm trying to tie MBTI and socionics together but sometimes it's confusing.
> 
> Which function in the top four MBTI stack is the socionics hidden agenda?
> 
> Is it the 4th or the 3rd functions form MBTI?


If you take information elements valued by each type quadra, they map onto MBTi functions as follows:

Socionics 1st Leading function (valued) ----------------------- MBTI *1st Dominant function*
Socionics 2nd Creative function (valued) ---------------------- MBTI *2nd Auxiliary function*
Socionics 3rd Role function (unvalued) ------------------------ MBTI 'shadow' function
Socionics 4th Vulnerable function (unvalued) ----------------- MBTI 'shadow' function
Socionics 5th Suggestive function "dual-seeking" (valued) --- MBTI *4th Inferior function*
Socionics 6th Activating function "Hidden Agenda" (valued) - MBTI *3rd Tertiary function* 
Socionics 7th Demonstrative function (unvalued) ------------- MBTI 'shadow'' function
Socionics 8th Ignoring function (unvalued) -------------------- MBTI 'shadow function

Interestingly enough, a Jungian analyst John Beebe has associated MBTI's inferior function with the "anima" or "animus - a reflection of the feminine or masculine in a man's or woman's psyche that represents the instinct for soulful connection and reflection - and using the above table this function maps exactly onto Socionics "dual-seeking" function that serves to pull duals to each other.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

sylas said:


> It's not "they" - it's MBTI that wants to be something that it's not.


It is. MBTI is treated as what it is, it's own desires for it's own self included. "They," on the other hand, do not treat it as what it is, and utilize simple confirmation bias to perpetuate such.



> The primary building blocks of MBTI have always been cognitive functions, not emotions. Socionics will also tell you about emotional outlook of types, EIEs for example, but these are secondary observable traits and not their foundation.


None of this is correct.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

DavidH said:


> It is. MBTI is treated as what it is, it's own desires for it's own self included. "They," on the other hand, do not treat it as what it is, and utilize simple confirmation bias to perpetuate such.
> 
> None of this is correct.


You may misinform and mislead the socionics newbies on this forum, but you'll never mislead the veterans.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Sylas said:


> You may misinform and mislead the socionics newbies on this forum, but you'll never mislead the veterans.


If by mislead, you mean provide correct information. The information you are providing is false and based upon the confirmation bias of individuals who want false information to be true information. Your other post on this page is entirely false equivalency of models that is not supported by Socionics.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

DavidH said:


> If by mislead, you mean provide correct information. The information you are providing is false and based upon the confirmation bias of individuals who want false information to be true information. Your other post on this page is entirely false equivalency of models that is not supported by Socionics.


No, mislead means you're posting misleading information, and your own misconceptions are making it much harder for new people to get into Socionics.



DavidH said:


> MBTI is present emotional outlook. Socionics is static environment.


Myers and Briggs have written their descriptions basing on Carl Jung's original work on Psychological types. His work has never described MBTI types in terms of simple "emotional outlook" but rather types are derived from having different cognitive functions that reflect mental prioritization of information. Likewise, descriptions of socionics types have little to do with their "static environment", which as I have pointed out above is sheer misinformation. 
Where do you ever get such shitty bogus misconceptions like the above.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Sylas said:


> No, mislead means you're posting misleading information, and your own misconceptions are making it much harder for new people to get into Socionics.


No. I am posting correct information, which is contrary to your false information.



> Myers and Briggs have written their descriptions basing on Carl Jung's original work on Psychological types.


"Basing on" is not equal. Again, your utilizing false equivalency.



> His work has never described MBTI types in terms of simple "emotional outlook" but rather types are derived from having different cognitive functions that reflect mental prioritization of information.


MBTI is self-reported preferences. The preferences are emotional.



> Likewise, descriptions of socionics types have little to do with their "static environment", which as I have pointed out above is sheer misinformation.
> Where do you ever get such shitty bogus misconceptions like the above.


That's not "likewise." That's you, again, using false equivalency. My statements do not alter Socionics. Your statements do. My statements utilize Socionics in logically coherent arguments. Aside from genetics, environment is the only remaining factor affecting personality which may be static, which has been empirically tested over and over again.

Excuse you? Where do I get such shitty bogus misconceptions? Listen here, little lady. Your statements thus far are entirely false, and laden with your own personal bias based upon what you wish was rather than what is, which is why you're even attempting to utilize your gross confirmation bias of other like-minded individuals with poor logical arguments and need for self-affirmation to alter facts into a fantasy land in the first place.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

@*Lord Pixel*

The Ti guy responding here may come off as pedantic but he has the basic idea right - what he's trying to say is there's no actual equivalency between MBTI and Socionics. MBTI and Socionics use some of the same symbology when you break them down into cognitive functions, and they both come from a similar root so may be loosely correlated, but functions in both systems don't denote entirely the same things, and Socionics is tied together into a different system than MBTI.

Keeping that in mind, the basic answer to your question is that the HA ("tertiary") for EII ("INFP") is Si. This goes for *either* system, just that they mean different things when they use the concept Si, and that they attach different systematic ideas to even the question of what a tertiary function implies in one's mentality.

I don't have any great resources for you offhand but you should read up on the "hidden agenda" or "activating function" in socionics to figure out what it means in a basic way, then what Si does in socionics, and some sources will attempt to describe "hidden agenda Si" as an entity unto itself and/or as it exists in the EII. Reading about it in Socionics terms and contrasting that with MBTI terms or understanding will provide you better overall insight.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

@Flatlander It also comes down to MBTI being a strength of preferences by self-report. It is not a strength of abilities. Socionics has preferred functions and not prefered functions. Socionics also has strength of abilities in the form of dimensionalities. Although one can state that an individual's preferential order of their functions in MBTI is their functional stack, if one even subscribes to type dynamics to begin with, one cannot state that an individual's preferential order of their functions in MBTI is their strength of abilities order in Socionics. Furthermore, Socionics does not supply a preferential order for functions in Model A. Socionics only supplies preferred or not prefered.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

@ OP Think I forgot to mention, the hidden agenda/2D function is also known as _mobilising_ or _activating_


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

Hi, I've not been around here for a while...

I've always found that trying to tie MBTI to Socionics only results in confusion. You first have to believe that MBTI can reliably indicate your function preferences, and that these functions are equivalent to what you'd find in Socionics... I don't believe either of these are the case. And even if they were, Socionics is such a different way of thinking that applying MBTI thinking can only hinder your understanding, that's my experience - especially as a lot of the terminology is very similar but can mean vastly different things - for example even 'function' has a slightly different meaning in Socionics.

While you might find it helpful to come in to it using your MBTI type to "guess" your sociotype, as a starting point, it's important to build up a socionics understanding to be really sure.

Further reading:
Myers-Briggs Typology - Wikisocion
J/P switch - Wikisocion


----------

