# Are MBTI ISTPS usually socionics ISTjs?



## AimfortheBrain

They say that ISTjs are Si dom in socionics, but all the descriptions sound like MBTI ISTPs. For those of you who know about socionics, what do you think of this?


----------



## aestrivex

AimfortheBrain said:


> They say that ISTjs are Si dom in socionics, but all the descriptions sound like MBTI ISTPs. For those of you who know about socionics, what do you think of this?


1) ISTj/LSI in socionics does not have Si dominant, LSI has Ti dominant.

2) What follows is my subjective opinion, based on my understanding of the overall archetype of the characters in MBTI -- I agree, ISTPs are probably Se-oriented characters in terms of socionics. In my opinion the socionics community has a ton of beta STs mistyped as delta ST, and I think the MBTI caricatures of ISTP and ESTJ as "aggressive" and "rebellious" in the case of ISTPs are largely responsible for poor comprehension of the delta quadra.

I'd expect ISTPs to often land as ESI, LSI, SLE, but not generally SLI.


----------



## zynthaxx

Frankly, I get very poor congruence between all of the different possible type descriptions in Socionics (I recognize myself in somewhere between 60-80% of the respective descriptions), as opposed to MBTI where I actually recognize my motives in the ISTP description even if you have to filter out some obvious bullshit when someone without understanding has tried to describe "me" based on an outside view.


----------



## DemonAbyss10

zynthaxx said:


> Frankly, I get very poor congruence between all of the different possible type descriptions in Socionics (I recognize myself in somewhere between 60-80% of the respective descriptions), as opposed to MBTI where I actually recognize my motives in the ISTP description even if you have to filter out some obvious bullshit when someone without understanding has tried to describe "me" based on an outside view.


Likewise. It is why I do not go off of socionics whatsoever.


----------



## ohtochooseaname

Socionics functions and how they work/interrelate are actually very different from MBTI, such that there is very little relationship between the two systems. That being said, I'm closest to an SLI (ISTp) than anything else.


----------



## DemonAbyss10

ohtochooseaname said:


> Socionics functions and how they work/interrelate are actually very different from MBTI, such that there is very little relationship between the two systems. That being said, I'm closest to an SLI (ISTp) than anything else.


I do not take Socionics seriously but we wound up getting a free official test at my one old job due to management wanting it done to help with so called 'placement and relations'. So official test scores me as an ILI/INTp when it comes to socionics. I do not attribute any of my attributes to intuition. I take in/observe things and analyze them fast enough that it seems like everything is a complete asspull to some individuals.


----------



## nos302

I usually get IxTx in socionic tests. For the type descriptions, I can relate myself towards ISTp more.


----------



## cyamitide

There are some socionics tests here in any ISTPs want to take them & post your results:
Socionics Tests
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/37634-Socionics-Tests-Database

IMO Ti dominants in MBTI are likely to be Ti dominants in Socionics too. Socionics Ti is still structural logic and is very similar to MBTI's Ti. Therefore most ISTPs should transfer as ISTj into socionics. However the socionics ISTj profiles are some of the crappiest profiles ever -- they make ISTjs sound like obedient hierarchy drones who spend their free time writing laws and pedantically making sure everyone else follows them -- so many ISTPs cannot identify with them and type as something else



aestrivex said:


> In my opinion the socionics community has a ton of beta STs mistyped as delta ST, and I think the MBTI caricatures of ISTP and ESTJ as "aggressive" and "rebellious" in the case of ISTPs are largely responsible for poor comprehension of the delta quadra.


This is true. Socionics Beta ST types like ISTj and ESTp are typically portrayed as too bossy or violent, such regular common people can't easy relate to them and end up picking other types.


----------



## aestrivex

DemonAbyss10 said:


> I do not take Socionics seriously but we wound up getting a free official test at my one old job due to management wanting it done to help with so called 'placement and relations'. So official test scores me as an ILI/INTp when it comes to socionics. I do not attribute any of my attributes to intuition. I take in/observe things and analyze them fast enough that it seems like everything is a complete asspull to some individuals.


Your manager wanted you to take a socionics test? I apologize for prying, but I am extremely curious -- where do you work, and do you know what test it was?


----------



## lightwing

I don't know much about all this, but here's my result of the test at the first link you posted:

Test ResultsYour Sociotype: SLI-1Te (ISTp)
Other Possible Types

LSE (ESTj): 74% as likely as SLI.
ILI (INTp): 69% as likely as SLI.
LSI (ISTj): 66% as likely as SLI.

www.sociotype.com/tests/result/est/24774


----------



## cyamitide

cyamitide said:


> There are some socionics tests here in any ISTPs want to take them & post your results:
> Socionics Tests
> http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/37634-Socionics-Tests-Database





lightwing said:


> I don't know much about all this, but here's my result of the test at the first link you posted:
> *Test Results*
> *Your Sociotype: SLI-1Te (ISTp)*


Socionics ISTp is Si dominant and Te creative so in MBTI terms that would be ISTJ.

ISTP cognitive functional order is Ti-Se-Ni-Fe
ISTp's cognitive order is Si-Te-Fi-Ne so that doesn't quite match.

These are profiles for socionics *ISTp* and their *ISTj*.


----------



## lightwing

That makes sense. I retake the free MBTI tests from time to time and I do come up as ISTJ once in a while.


----------



## cyamitide

Aligning types between MBTI and Socionics by their cognitive functions, the j/p letter seems to be flipped around for introverted types. So MBTI ISTP has same functions as Socionics ISTj and MBTI ISTJ has same functions as Socionics ISTp.


----------



## DemonAbyss10

aestrivex said:


> Your manager wanted you to take a socionics test? I apologize for prying, but I am extremely curious -- where do you work, and do you know what test it was?


Was back when I worked at a pressure casting facility. I do not remember the test though.


----------



## aestrivex

DemonAbyss10 said:


> Was back when I worked at a pressure casting facility. I do not remember the test though.


and you're sure it was a socionics test and not an MBTI test?


----------



## madhatter

cyamitide said:


> IMO Ti dominants in MBTI are likely to be Ti dominants in Socionics too. Socionics Ti is still structural logic and is very similar to MBTI's Ti. Therefore most ISTPs should transfer as ISTj into socionics. However the socionics ISTj profiles are some of the crappiest profiles ever -- they make ISTjs sound like obedient hierarchy drones who spend their free time writing laws and pedantically making sure everyone else follows them -- so many ISTPs cannot identify with them and type as something else
> 
> This is true. Socionics Beta ST types like ISTj and ESTp are typically portrayed as too bossy or violent, such regular common people can't easy relate to them and end up picking other types.


Yes, I relate completely to both versions of Ti, but I have a hard time relating to the material on LSI/ISTj for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I haven't quite settled on a type in Socionics, but introverted thinking is definitely my base function.


----------



## DemonAbyss10

aestrivex said:


> and you're sure it was a socionics test and not an MBTI test?


You can be sure when it gives you a result of ILI, no need to ask if I am sure.


----------



## Erbse

Your Sociotype: LII-1Ti (INTj)


ILE (ENTp): 92% as likely as LII.
ILI (INTp): 86% as likely as LII.
LIE (ENTj): 65% as likely as LII.

Guess not, to answer your question.

Apparently the test thinks my Ne is skyrocketing.

www.sociotype.com/tests/result/est/24798

S'pose it makes me an MBTI INTP (?) then - so, in a sense, the flippage would apparently apply to me.

However, as previously mentioned, the socionics ISTj text description got nothing to do with my personality whatsoever.


----------



## Aquc

A lot of them are putting me as ISTp. I do have a very low SN in divide in myer-briggs if that has anything to do with it?


----------



## aestrivex

DemonAbyss10 said:


> You can be sure when it gives you a result of ILI, no need to ask if I am sure.


that's fascinating. and when was this?

(i apologize for asking so many questions, but this is the kind of thing that never happens)


----------



## DemonAbyss10

maybe 2 years ago give or take.


----------



## cyamitide

Erbse said:


> Your Sociotype: LII-1Ti (INTj)
> 
> 
> ILE (ENTp): 92% as likely as LII.
> ILI (INTp): 86% as likely as LII.
> LIE (ENTj): 65% as likely as LII.
> 
> Guess not, to answer your question.
> 
> Apparently the test thinks my Ne is skyrocketing.
> 
> www.sociotype.com/tests/result/est/24798
> 
> S'pose it makes me an MBTI INTP (?) then - so, in a sense, the flippage would apparently apply to me.
> 
> However, as previously mentioned, the socionics ISTj text description got nothing to do with my personality whatsoever.


On few occasions I've thought that you might be INTP rather than ISTP having seen a few of your posts. Socionics INTj is indeed closest to MBTI's INTP -- they have exactly the same valued functions: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe.


----------



## Erbse

cyamitide said:


> On few occasions I've thought that you might be INTP rather than ISTP having seen a few of your posts. Socionics INTj is indeed closest to MBTI's INTP -- they have exactly the same valued functions: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe.


I wouldn't deny the possibility, while there is a certain dissonance with your typical ISTP, there is also one with your typical INTP. Thus I settled for Ti dom and hang around in the to me more comfortable section.


----------



## madhatter

Finally took that test:

Your Sociotype: LII-2Ti (INTj)

Brief Description of the LII

Using introverted thinking as his base function and extroverted intuition as his creative, the LII is adept at creating a concept of reality through the synthesis and application of preformulated principles and rules. When formulating new principles, the LII methodically analyzes new information, taking the salient aspects and discarding the extraneous. Staying within the boundaries of his principles, the LII is capable of generating new ideas and possibilities of how the world could work. At its best, this ability gives the LII an aura of confidence and insightfulness into areas of abstraction and possibility that many other types don't have; at its worst, this ability may lead the LII to possibilities so impractical or unreachable that he is perceived as others to be out of touch with reality. Additionally, the LIIs inclination for deep isolated thoughts often leaves him disconnected from societal interaction--as if he is constantly an observer but never a participant. Learn more about the LII here!

Other Possible Types

ILE (ENTp): 85% as likely as LII.
LSI (ISTj): 85% as likely as LII.
ILI (INTp): 73% as likely as LII.


----------



## Entropic

Well, that test gives me LII or EII depending a bit how I score. I don't like how some questions are phrased though, makes me hard to answer them, for example if I got issues with empathy or logic. I don't find any of them particularly difficult. I guess that's why I don't like dichotomy tests like these.


----------



## koalaroo

LeaT said:


> Well, that test gives me LII or EII depending a bit how I score. I don't like how some questions are phrased though, makes me hard to answer them, for example if I got issues with empathy or logic. I don't find any of them particularly difficult. I guess that's why I don't like dichotomy tests like these.


Whenever I take a socionics test, it always gives me LIE. I'm pretty skeptical of it all.


----------



## Kanerou

koalaroo said:


> Whenever I take a socionics test, it always gives me LIE. I'm pretty skeptical of it all.


Come join us in the bloodbath! \o/ We're giving away free maces to new recruits this week.


----------



## madhatter

LeaT said:


> Well, that test gives me LII or EII depending a bit how I score. I don't like how some questions are phrased though, makes me hard to answer them, for example if I got issues with empathy or logic. I don't find any of them particularly difficult. I guess that's why I don't like dichotomy tests like these.


The questions about sensing vs intuition are always the ones that hang me up. The logic vs ethics questions rarely do.


----------



## Erbse

madhatter said:


> Finally took that test:
> 
> Your Sociotype: LII-2Ti (INTj)
> 
> Brief Description of the LII
> 
> Using introverted thinking as his base function and extroverted intuition as his creative, the LII is adept at creating a concept of reality through the synthesis and application of preformulated principles and rules. When formulating new principles, the LII methodically analyzes new information, taking the salient aspects and discarding the extraneous. Staying within the boundaries of his principles, the LII is capable of generating new ideas and possibilities of how the world could work. At its best, this ability gives the LII an aura of confidence and insightfulness into areas of abstraction and possibility that many other types don't have; at its worst, this ability may lead the LII to possibilities so impractical or unreachable that he is perceived as others to be out of touch with reality. Additionally, the LIIs inclination for deep isolated thoughts often leaves him disconnected from societal interaction--as if he is constantly an observer but never a participant. Learn more about the LII here!
> 
> Other Possible Types
> 
> ILE (ENTp): 85% as likely as LII.
> LSI (ISTj): 85% as likely as LII.
> ILI (INTp): 73% as likely as LII.


----------



## madhatter

Erbse said:


>


----------



## Entropic

madhatter said:


> The questions about sensing vs intuition are always the ones that hang me up. The logic vs ethics questions rarely do.


Yes, to me, sensing vs intuition is not a problem. Logic vs ethics is though, for most of the part, because I identify both as strong and after learning more about myself, I'm uncertain as to where my actual preferences lie.


----------



## sinigang

LeaT said:


> Yes, to me, sensing vs intuition is not a problem. Logic vs ethics is though, for most of the part, because I identify both as strong and after learning more about myself, I'm uncertain as to where my actual preferences lie.


Maybe you're actually a P-dom and you have two J's in your creative/mobilizing functions causing the confusion. Not assuming you are actually like that but its a possibility.

On topic I would agree that ISTP's translate to ISTj's, due to the similarity in functions/IME. That is unless were talking about people who are mistyped in the first place. I just think the stereotypes are mixed up. ISTj's still seem like the quiet thinker/jocks and ISTp's are the into details people.


----------



## Entropic

sinigang said:


> Maybe you're actually a P-dom and you have two J's in your creative/mobilizing functions causing the confusion. Not assuming you are actually like that but its a possibility.
> 
> On topic I would agree that ISTP's translate to ISTj's, due to the similarity in functions/IME. That is unless were talking about people who are mistyped in the first place. I just think the stereotypes are mixed up. ISTj's still seem like the quiet thinker/jocks and ISTp's are the into details people.


No I'm definitely a rational dom. I know the problem because it has to do with my enneagram.


----------



## Sol_

AimfortheBrain said:


> They say that ISTjs are Si dom in socionics


In MBT, but not in Socionics, neither at Jung.



> For those of you who know about socionics, what do you think of this?


MBT uses correct theory of preferences, but wrong functional models of introverted types - this results in mess in MBT's types descriptions.


----------



## sinigang

LeaT said:


> No I'm definitely a rational dom. I know the problem because it has to do with my enneagram.


Ah yes. I'm actually also interested in how type changes when stressed or relaxed. Socionics has yet to touch in detail on that. Beebe theory, though, tries but does not seem to explain conclusively on how it happens.


----------



## semtex

If you read the type descriptions for ISTJ and ISTj in mbti and socionics, they are both actually pretty similar. 

Socionics Types: LSI-ISTj

They like to do things by the book, they like to control those around them to get them to follow the rules of their society. They have a highly developed sense of duty. They don't like ambiguity or uncertainty. Not very in tune with the feelings of others. They don't like change...

ISTJ Personal Growth

Again it's saying the same thing. They respect rules and order, they don't like to bend the rules, value the social structure they were brought up in, have a tendency to control those around them, lack of interest in relating to others in a personal way but do so out of a sense of duty. Feelings aren't a major concern for them. They don't like it when people are too unpredictable...




Socionics Types: SLI-ISTp

Highly in tune with the physical world, they like to fix things, they like their lives to be simplified and run efficiently. They are oblivious to social conventions, they don't follow the crowd. They will bend the rules as they see fit. They are minimally aware of the feelings of those around them. They can get stuck in a rut and appreciate it when people provide novel experiences for them. Not really interested in controlling others...

ISTP Personal Growth

In tune with their environment, resistant to structure,excellent trouble shooters, may resist situations that are entirely new and get stuck in a rut because of this, don't like to control or be controlled, not naturally in tune with peoples feelings, don't like confining commitments, have a compelling drive to understand how things work...

The function order might be different in mbti and socionics, but the essence of the characters being described is the same. 

I can't understand what all the confusion is about. If someone is an istj then they will like rules and structure, and the type descriptions for both mbti and socionics will describe their characters. The descriptions are basically the same. 
If they are istp then they will have a tendency to bend the rules. 
I can't understand why someone would say they are istp in mbti but, istj in socioncs. 
So what does that mean? 
You like to follow the rules or you like to bend the rules? It has to be one or the other.
You can't be both.


----------



## aestrivex

semtex said:


> You like to follow the rules or you like to bend the rules? It has to be one or the other.
> You can't be both.


It means that, you have looked at a very narrow subset of characteristics that do not speak to driving values in socionics, particularly so for the SLI.


----------



## semtex

aestrivex said:


> It means that, you have looked at a very narrow subset of characteristics that do not speak to driving values in socionics, particularly so for the SLI.


Well, I tried to be as brief as possible. Do you not think it's fair to say that LSI's value rules and order? 
And that SLI's don't value societal rules?


----------



## aestrivex

semtex said:


> And that SLI's don't value societal rules?


I think this is perhaps accurate but largely missing the point about SLIs.


----------



## semtex

aestrivex said:


> I think this is perhaps accurate but largely missing the point about SLIs.


What point was that?


----------



## Kanerou

@aestrivex You had a write-up about this on the WS forum. If you want, I'll go find and post it; or you can, if you'd like.


----------



## aestrivex

Kanerou said:


> @_aestrivex_ You had a write-up about this on the WS forum. If you want, I'll go find and post it; or you can, if you'd like.


sure, if you wish.


----------



## aestrivex

semtex said:


> What point was that?


SLIs have been misdescribed due to their separateness from society as things like "rebellious." The point about SLIs to note that is important to their psyche is that they have delta values and they are "self-sufficient" which makes it appear as though they are distant, but they are not rebellious as ISTPs are described. Rather the rebelliously individualistic types are betas, whereas SLIs' nonconformism is much more subdued and personal (as befits an Fi valuing type).


----------



## semtex

aestrivex said:


> SLIs have been misdescribed due to their separateness from society as things like "rebellious." The point about SLIs to note that is important to their psyche is that they have delta values and they are "self-sufficient" which makes it appear as though they are distant, but they are not rebellious as ISTPs are described. Rather the rebelliously individualistic types are betas, whereas SLIs' nonconformism is much more subdued and personal (as befits an Fi valuing type).


If an istp is in a situation where they are expected to follow the norms of society and this norm goes against their own personal code of ethics, they will rebel. They wont follow the crowd. An istj would follow the norms of society and be unaware if it is morally wrong until maybe some time later.


----------



## Kanerou

Here's the relevant part of the post in question. It's shorter than I thought, but it addresses the OP somewhat. Quoted profiles taken from Typelogic.
-------------------------------------------


> Like their fellow SPs, ISTPs are fundamentally Performers (note the capital 'P'), but as Ts their areas of interest tend to be mechanical rather than artistic like those of ISFPs, and unlike most ESPs they do not present an impression of constant activity. On the contrary, they lie dormant, saving their energy until *a project or an adventure worthy of their time comes along--and then they launch themselves at it.* The apparently frenzied state that inevitably ensues is actually much more controlled than it appears--ISTPs always seem to know what they're doing when it comes to physical or mechanical obstacles--but the whole chain of events presents a confusing and paradoxical picture to an outsider.
> 
> 
> *ISTPs are equally difficult to understand in their need for personal space,* which in turn has an impact on their relationships with others. They need to be able to "spread out"--both physically and psychologically--which generally implies encroaching to some degree on others, especially if they decide that something of someone else's is going to become their next project. (They are generally quite comfortable, however, with being treated the same way they treat others--at least in this respect.) But because they need such a lot of flexibility to be as spontaneous as they feel they must be, *they tend to become as inflexible as the most rigid J when someone seems to be threatening their lifestyle* (although they usually respond with a classic SP rage which is yet another vivid contrast to their "dormant," impassive, detached mode). These *territorial considerations* are usually critical in relationships with ISTPs; communication also tends to be a key issue, since they generally express themselves non-verbally. When they do actually verbalize, *ISTPs are masters of the one-liner,* often showing flashes of humor in the most tense situations; this can result in their being seen as thick-skinned or tasteless.
> 
> 
> 
> Like most SPs, ISTPs may have trouble with rote and abstract classroom learning, which tend not to be good measures of their actual intelligence. They tend, sometimes with good reason, to be highly skeptical of its practical value, and often gravitate towards classes in industrial arts; part-time vocational/ technical programs can be useful to even the college-bound ISTP. In terms of careers, mechanics and any of the skilled trades are traditional choices, and those ISTPs with strong numerical as well mechanical gifts tend to do extremely well in most areas of engineering. Working as paramedics or firefighters can fulfill the ISTP need to live on the edge; they are at their best in a crisis, where their natural disregard for rules and authority structures allows them to focus on and tackle the emergency at hand in the most effective way.
> 
> ISTPs with more sedate careers usually take on *high-risk avocations like racing, skydiving, and motorcycling.* While aware of the dangers involved, they are so in touch with the physical world that they know they can get away with much smaller safety margins than other types.


overall, the ISTP description reads most closely like SLE and nothing like SLI. this is no doubt a common source of mistyping for SLEs and LSIs to misidentify themselves as SLI. in general, the description emphasizes things like high-risk behavior, adventurousness, spontaneous and variable energy (very appropriate to SLE), territorial behavior, and aggressiveness.



> ISTJs are often called inspectors. *They have a keen sense of right and wrong, especially in their area of interest and/or responsibility.* They are noted for devotion to *duty*. [/b]Punctuality[/b] is a watchword of the ISTJ. The secretary, clerk, or business(wo)man by whom others set their clocks is likely to be an ISTJ.
> 
> As do other Introverted Thinkers, ISTJs often give the initial impression of being aloof and perhaps somewhat cold. Effusive expression of emotional warmth is not something that ISTJs do without considerable energy loss.
> 
> ISTJs are most at home with "just the facts, Ma'am." They seem to perform at highest efficiency when employing a step-by-step approach. Once a new procedure has proven itself (i.e., has been shown "to work,") the ISTJ can be depended upon to carry it through, even at the expense of their own health.
> 
> ISTJs are *easily frustrated by the inconsistencies of others,* especially when the second parties don't keep their commitments. But they usually keep their feelings to themselves unless they are asked. And when asked, they don't mince words. Truth wins out over tact. The grim determination of the ISTJ vindicates itself in officiation of sports events, judiciary functions, or an other situation which requires making tough calls and sticking to them.
> 
> His SJ orientation draws the ISTJ into the service of *established institutions. Home, social clubs, government, schools, the military, churches -- these are the bastions of the SJ. "We've always done it this way" is often reason enough for many ISTJs. Threats to time-honored traditions or established organizations (e.g., a "run" on the bank) are the undoing of SJs, and are to be fought at all costs.*


*


this description could mean a variety of things (and potentially might appeal to LSEs, for instance), but in general its emphasis is on discipline, rules, and structure -- things i associate most closely with LII and LSI.*


----------



## aestrivex

semtex said:


> If an istp is in a situation where they are expected to follow the norms of society and this norm goes against their own personal code of ethics, they will rebel. They wont follow the crowd. An istj would follow the norms of society and be unaware if it is morally wrong until maybe some time later.


You've essentially ignored what I had to say.


----------



## semtex

Kanerou said:


> Here's the relevant part of the post in question. It's shorter than I thought, but it addresses the OP somewhat. Quoted profiles taken from Typelogic.
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> overall, the ISTP description reads most closely like SLE and nothing like SLI. this is no doubt a common source of mistyping for SLEs and LSIs to misidentify themselves as SLI. in general, the description emphasizes things like high-risk behavior, adventurousness, spontaneous and variable energy (very appropriate to SLE), territorial behavior, and aggressiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this description could mean a variety of things (and potentially might appeal to LSEs, for instance), but in general its emphasis is on discipline, rules, and structure -- things i associate most closely with LII and LSI.


Yes I would associate discipline, rules and structure with LII's and LSI's also. Ti. 
I don't understand why you say that the istp description reads nothing like an istp though. 
"Need for personal space"
"they need such a lot of flexibility to be as spontaneous as they feel they must be,"
"They are at their best in a crisis, where their *natural disregard for rules and authority structures* allows them to focus on and tackle the emergency at hand in the most effective way."
"they are so in touch with the physical world"

Sounds like an istp to me. Could also describe an estp, but estp's like social interaction and don't shy away from it. They don't confuse people with their need for personal space like istp's do. If an estp read this and thought they were istp I think they'd be well advised to read a few more descriptions. lol. roud:


----------



## semtex

aestrivex said:


> You've essentially ignored what I had to say.


I didn't ignore what you had to say. I just didn't agree. I think istp's are rebelious. More so than istj's.


----------



## aestrivex

semtex said:


> I didn't ignore what you had to say. I just didn't agree. I think istp's are rebelious. More so than istj's.


All right.


----------



## Kanerou

semtex said:


> Yes I would associate discipline, rules and structure with LII's and LSI's also. Ti.
> I don't understand why you say that the istp description reads nothing like an istp though.
> "Need for personal space"
> "they need such a lot of flexibility to be as spontaneous as they feel they must be,"
> "They are at their best in a crisis, where their *natural disregard for rules and authority structures* allows them to focus on and tackle the emergency at hand in the most effective way."
> "they are so in touch with the physical world"
> 
> Sounds like an istp to me. Could also describe an estp, but estp's like social interaction and don't shy away from it. They don't confuse people with their need for personal space like istp's do. If an estp read this and thought they were istp I think they'd be well advised to read a few more descriptions. lol. roud:


When you say "estp", "istj", etc, are you talking about MBTI types or Socionic types? They're not interchangeable, so knowing which system you're addressing will help me to know how to respond.


----------



## Entropic

This is why type descriptions aren't overly helpful in figuring out type unless you happened to be very stereotype :wink:


----------



## sinigang

Kanerou said:


> this description could mean a variety of things (and potentially might appeal to LSEs, for instance), but in general its emphasis is on discipline, rules, and structure -- things i associate most closely with LII and LSI.


LII's tend to not like rules. Like ILE's, LII's also tend to be quite exploitative with a lot of things, they're just very not pronounced.


----------



## semtex

Kanerou said:


> When you say "estp", "istj", etc, are you talking about MBTI types or Socionic types? They're not interchangeable, so knowing which system you're addressing will help me to know how to respond.


The way I see it is that both systems are describing the same things, just going about it in a different way. It's like if I was to describe a flower, because I speak english I call it a flower. If I were german I'd call it blume, a spanish person would call it flor. Different terms to describe the same thing. Or if I were a christian I'd call God, God. If I were a muslim it would be Allah. I don't know if there is a god or not but he's (or she, or it) is not going to change to fit in with someones belief. He's either there or he isn't. 

Jung studied archetypes. He found that the same characters kept popping up in all the myths and legends the world over. I think these archetypes whether you want to call them by their socionics name or their mbti name _are _what they are and are not going to change because someone put them into a theory. They are what they are. I think mbti and socionics use different approaches to describe the same phenomena. 

I think if someone has all the characteristics of an istj, then they will have those characteristics in both mbti and socionics. Since the charateristics they are describing are the same. Fond of rules, controlling, introverted, not fond of abstractions, not great with emotions etc.... You can call their thinking process Ti or Te, it doesn't really matter. Their thinking process is what it is. It's a particular way of thinking that will not change because someone stuck the wrong label on it. It's like if I had a bottle of coke and I stuck a 7up label on it. Just cos I call it 7up doesn't mean it is. It's still coke. 


So to answer your question, when I say istj, I mean the type that exhibits all the characteristics of an istj (ISTj) which are the same characteristics (more or less) in each system. I think Socionics just does a better job than mbti. It goes deeper and describes the types in a lot more detail. And there is no confusion with the introverts switching the functions around.


----------



## semtex

LeaT said:


> This is why type descriptions aren't overly helpful in figuring out type unless you happened to be very stereotype :wink:


I think the best way to type yourself is to figure out what motivates you. Be real honest with yourself and whenever you do something ask yourself what your motivation was. Different types are motivated by different things. It's like how an actor gets into character. He asks "what's my motivation here?"


----------



## Kanerou

semtex said:


> The way I see it is that both systems are describing the same things, just going about it in a different way. It's like if I was to describe a flower, because I speak english I call it a flower. If I were german I'd call it blume, a spanish person would call it flor. Different terms to describe the same thing. Or if I were a christian I'd call God, God. If I were a muslim it would be Allah. I don't know if there is a god or not but he's (or she, or it) is not going to change to fit in with someones belief. He's either there or he isn't.
> 
> Jung studied archetypes. He found that the same characters kept popping up in all the myths and legends the world over. I think these archetypes whether you want to call them by their socionics name or their mbti name _are _what they are and are not going to change because someone put them into a theory. They are what they are. I think mbti and socionics use different approaches to describe the same phenomena.
> 
> I think if someone has all the characteristics of an istj, then they will have those characteristics in both mbti and socionics. Since the charateristics they are describing are the same. Fond of rules, controlling, introverted, not fond of abstractions, not great with emotions etc.... You can call their thinking process Ti or Te, it doesn't really matter. Their thinking process is what it is. It's a particular way of thinking that will not change because someone stuck the wrong label on it. It's like if I had a bottle of coke and I stuck a 7up label on it. Just cos I call it 7up doesn't mean it is. It's still coke.
> 
> 
> So to answer your question, when I say istj, I mean the type that exhibits all the characteristics of an istj (ISTj) which are the same characteristics (more or less) in each system. I think Socionics just does a better job than mbti. It goes deeper and describes the types in a lot more detail. And there is no confusion with the introverts switching the functions around.


We aren't going to get anywhere, then, so I won't attempt further discussion on the subject.


----------



## semtex

sinigang said:


> LII's tend to not like rules. Like ILE's, LII's also tend to be quite exploitative with a lot of things, they're just very not pronounced.


That's very true. They can be rebellious against any system that is in conflict with their own inner system of logic. Which is true for istj's also, but with the intj's Ne working with their Ti, they are less likely to follow societies norms in the same way Ti +Se would. They are quite structured and disciplined compared to other types though.


----------



## cyamitide

semtex said:


> The way I see it is that both systems are describing the same things, just going about it in a different way.


ISTJ in MBTI uses *introverted sensing* and *extraverted logic*.
ISTj in Socionics uses *introverted logic* and *extraverted sensing*.
They are actually very different types in the way they perceive the world. They seem similar on the surface, only at a cursory view, but you need to look deeper than that.


----------



## semtex

Kanerou said:


> We aren't going to get anywhere, then, so I won't attempt further discussion on the subject.


Are you rejecting my ideas before actually giving them any thought? Or do you have reasons why you disagree?


----------



## Kanerou

semtex said:


> Are you rejecting my ideas before actually giving them any thought? Or do you have reasons why you disagree?


You aren't the first person in this subforum to espouse those ideas; I'm fairly familiar with them at this point. We have what amounts to a very fundamental disagreement. I see things like "Fi", "Fe", "SLI", "ESTP", etc, as labels slapped onto a set of mental processes or filters. I agree that what matters is not the label but what's in the box it's being applied to. However, those "boxes", as it were, do not contain the same objects. Si in Socionics is not the same as Si in MBTI. Fi in Socionics is not MBTI Fi; it doesn't matter whether they are labelled the same, because the process or filter that they're describing is ultimately not the same thing. If the functions and IEs are not the same, and they are the building blocks of type within their respective systems, then there cannot be any sure overlap between the types across the systems.


----------



## semtex

cyamitide said:


> ISTJ in MBTI uses *introverted sensing* and *extraverted logic*.
> ISTj in Socionics uses *introverted logic* and *extraverted sensing*.
> They are actually very different types in the way they perceive the world. They seem similar on the surface, only at a cursory view, but you need to look deeper than that.


In mbti they call it introverted sensing and extraverted logic, but they got it wrong. They use Introverted logic and extraverted sensing. Even the istj personal growth page describes how their thinking works and it is introverted in nature. But they turn around and call it extraverted thinking. 

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. 

 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. 

If anything they are ruled by their inner thinking. If they were ruled by introverted sensing, they would seek out pleasurable sensations in favour of all else. But istj's don't do that. They are led by their inner data that tells them what is right and they are duty bound to follow this. 

If they don't consider the importance of other peoples thinking and value their own above others, since they have an inner logic that resists facts that don't support that thinking, then that is introverted thinking.  It's how Jung described introverted thinking. 

"Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake."

what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea.


[url]http://personalitycafe.com/istp-articles/95596-jungs-description-introverted-thinking-type-ti-dominant.html[/URL]


----------



## cyamitide

semtex said:


> In mbti they call it introverted sensing and extraverted logic, but they got it wrong. They use Introverted logic and extraverted sensing. Even the istj personal growth page describes how their thinking works and it is introverted in nature. But they turn around and call it extraverted thinking.


If you claim that MBTI ISTJ and Socionics ISTj are the same type, this means that MBTI got ALL 8 FUNCTIONS WRONG and that all this time nobody has noticed it. All the thousands of people who have been studying Jung and MBTI have been wrong all this time and they don't have the slightest clue about it. 

That's crazy talk. It is much more likely that it is you who has made a mistake somewhere, looking at how you're comparing the profiles which is a newbie mistake since profiles don't define types.


----------



## semtex

Kanerou said:


> You aren't the first person in this subforum to espouse those ideas; I'm fairly familiar with them at this point. We have what amounts to a very fundamental disagreement. I see things like "Fi", "Fe", "SLI", "ESTP", etc, as labels slapped onto a set of mental processes or filters. I agree that what matters is not the label but what's in the box it's being applied to. However, those "boxes", as it were, do not contain the same objects. Si in Socionics is not the same as Si in MBTI. Fi in Socionics is not MBTI Fi; it doesn't matter whether they are labelled the same, because the process or filter that they're describing is ultimately not the same thing. If the functions and IEs are not the same, and they are the building blocks of type within their respective systems, then there cannot be any sure overlap between the types across the systems.


I think it's just semantics. The essence of the types is the same and I think that is what matters. If I could throw mbti out and replace it with socionics I would. But mbti is popular here and it just makes it easier to think of the types in both systems being the same, since they are the same essentially when you consider their motivations. Potayto - potahto. You know? 

I get what you're saying about the functions though. I think the way Jung wrote about the functions confused a lot of people. It's a tough enough read. I could see why people would be confused and this is why mbti defines them differently, I don't think they fully understood the phenomena he was describing. Jung himself said he didn't think people would understand what he was saying. 

I can see why you said there can't be any overlap between the systems but there is this phenomena of types and whether you want to define it by mbti or socionics, peoples characters can still be attributed to types. Wether people type themselves correctly or not is another story.


----------



## semtex

cyamitide said:


> If you claim that MBTI ISTJ and Socionics ISTj are the same type, this means that MBTI got ALL 8 FUNCTIONS WRONG and that all this time nobody has noticed it. All the thousands of people who have been studying Jung and MBTI have been wrong all this time and they don't have the slightest clue about it.
> 
> That's crazy talk. It is much more likely that it is you who has made a mistake somewhere, looking at how you're comparing the profiles which is a newbie mistake since profiles don't define types.


Why do you presume I'm new to this? 
Thousands of people thought the earth was flat at some point until Galileo pointed out that it was round.
Was he crazy to trust his own judgement? 

And actually there are many people who spotted the inconsistencies in mbti.


----------



## Kanerou

semtex said:


> I think it's just semantics. The essence of the types is the same and I think that is what matters. If I could throw mbti out and replace it with socionics I would. But mbti is popular here and it just makes it easier to think of the types in both systems being the same, since they are the same essentially when you consider their motivations. Potayto - potahto. You know?


No, I don't know. As previously stated and explained, I disagree with that.



> I get what you're saying about the functions though. I think the way Jung wrote about the functions confused a lot of people. It's a tough enough read. I could see why people would be confused and this is why mbti defines them differently, I don't think they fully understood the phenomena he was describing. Jung himself said he didn't think people would understand what he was saying.


So your solution is to ignore what the authors of the system said about the basic components of their own system because they probably meant x and not y, they just couldn't fully understand what they were looking at.



> I can see why you said there can't be any overlap between the systems but there is this phenomena of types and whether you want to define it by mbti or socionics, peoples characters can still be attributed to types. Wether people type themselves correctly or not is another story.


Again, disagree.


----------



## semtex

Kanerou said:


> No, I don't know. As previously stated and explained, I disagree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> So your solution is to ignore what the authors of the system said about the basic components of their own system because they probably meant x and not y, they just couldn't fully understand what they were looking at.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, disagree.



Have you read Jungs personality types? And if so, did you not notice the difference between his description of the functions and mbti's description?


----------



## cyamitide

semtex said:


> Why do you presume I'm new to this?


For one you don't seem to understand that Socionics types are not "types of personality". They are "types of information metabolism". This is the reason that they are commonly referred to as TIMs, which is short for "types of information metabolism". This is a huge and very important thing to understand about Socionics which many novices don't take into consideration.

Instead you're treating socionics types as personality types and basing your arguments on comparisons of descriptive profiles of types, which in the light of what socionics was founded on, this, is a wrong approach based on misunderstanding of what Socionics is all about.



> Thousands of people thought the earth was flat at some point until Galileo pointed out that it was round.
> Was he crazy to trust his own judgement?


Galileo had some objective evidence on which he based his conclusion. You don't, so it's a rather poor analogy.



> And actually there are many people who spotted the inconsistencies in mbti.


Many people prefer to think of Socionics as separate from MBTI, since their evolution has taken very different turns, rather than attempting to invalidate one or the other. This is the most sensible approach.


----------



## Kanerou

semtex said:


> Have you read Jungs personality types? And if so, did you not notice the difference between his description of the functions and mbti's description?


I attempted it once. Might as well have been reading Greek. Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that MBTI and Socionics are built around functions and IM elements as defined by the people who developed the systems and that those systems are designed to work around those definitions.


----------



## semtex

cyamitide said:


> For one you don't seem to understand that Socionics types are not "types of personality". They are "types of information metabolism". This is the reason that they are commonly referred to as TIMs, which is short for "types of information metabolism". This is a huge and very important thing to understand about Socionics which many novices don't take into consideration.
> 
> Instead you're treating socionics types as personality types and basing your arguments on comparisons of descriptive profiles of types, which in the light of what socionics was founded on, this, is a wrong approach based on misunderstanding of what Socionics is all about.
> 
> 
> Galileo had some objective evidence on which he based his conclusion. You don't, so it's a rather poor analogy.
> 
> 
> Many people prefer to think of Socionics as separate from MBTI, since their evolution has taken very different turns, rather than attempting to invalidate one or the other. This is the most sensible approach.


Yeah socionics is about information metabolism and how it works to cause a person to be a certain socionics type. 

I don't think you understand what I'm saying at all. They can't both be right.


----------



## semtex

Kanerou said:


> I attempted it once. Might as well have been reading Greek. Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that MBTI and Socionics are built around functions and IM elements as defined by the people who developed the systems and that those systems are designed to work around those definitions.


I read it a few times and actually found it easy enough to understand. I think the problem with there being two systems to describe the same thing, is that you have people quarralling over semantics and a lot of confused heads. That's a problem.

I came across this just now. Somebody simplified Jung's work on Fi. 

_It gives a woman of this type a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the Te male, for it touches his unconscious by way of the deeply felt, archetypal images._

Is he touching on duality here do you think? Te being attracted to Fi? 

http://forum.socionix.com/topic/2459-jung-fi-translation/


----------



## sinigang

@*semtex*

They just want you to say ISTJ or ISTp with the capitals. Lol.


----------



## Kanerou

semtex said:


> I read it a few times and actually found it easy enough to understand. I think the problem with there being two systems to describe the same thing, is that you have people quarralling over semantics and a lot of confused heads. That's a problem.


As predicted, we're getting nowhere. This is why I begged off in the beginning.


----------



## cyamitide

semtex said:


> Yeah socionics is about information metabolism and how it works to cause a person to be a certain socionics type. I don't think you understand what I'm saying at all.


It doesn't cause them to be a certain type -- it _is_ their socionics type. Socionics type isn't personality type -- you don't seem to understand this.

Socionics TIM is certain thinking mechanism compiled from 8 functions and 8 information elements. This thinking mechanism doesn't define who you are as a person. It's about how you think -- not about your talents, skills, aspirations in life, qualitative traits that can be assigned to you.

This is why so many people cannot associate with their profiles. There are EIIs who are assertive, SLIs who don't know how to work with their hands, IEEs who are judges, SEIs who are scientists, ILIs who are actors and performers, and EIEs who are physics professors. This sort of insistence that Socionics type defines who you are as a person is the reason that many people dump it and never look back -- it doesn't work like that.


----------



## Kanerou

sinigang said:


> @*semtex*
> 
> They just want you to say ISTJ or ISTp with the capitals. Lol.


That was originally the issue, yes. However, if she ignores the IM element definitions, then it doesn't matter what nomenclature she uses; we're not discussing the same thing.


----------



## semtex

cyamitide said:


> It doesn't cause them to be a certain type -- it _is_ their socionics type. Socionics type isn't personality type -- you don't seem to understand this.
> 
> Socionics TIM is certain thinking mechanism compiled from 8 functions and 8 information elements. This thinking mechanism doesn't define who you are as a person. It's about how you think -- not about your talents, skills, aspirations in life, qualitative traits that can be assigned to you.
> 
> This is why so many people cannot associate with their profiles. There are EIIs who are assertive, SLIs who don't know how to work with their hands, IEEs who are judges, SEIs who are scientists, ILIs who are actors and performers, and EIEs who are physics professors. This sort of insistence that Socionics type defines who you are as a person is the reason that many people dump it and never look back -- it doesn't work like that.



_Due to the fact that differences in personality types are just differences in information signals exchange with the environment, personality types can be called the information metabolism types (IM types). 

http://en.socionics.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=252&Itemid=189
_


----------



## semtex

Kanerou said:


> That was originally the issue, yes. However, if she ignores the IM element definitions, then it doesn't matter what nomenclature she uses; we're not discussing the same thing.


Maybe we just understand it differently. Since I'm a Ne dom, I'm more interested in the essence of things. And I see the essence of both systems being the same. Lets just leave it at that.


----------



## Kanerou

semtex said:


> Maybe we just understand it differently. Since I'm a Ne dom, I'm more interested in the essence of things. And I see the essence of both systems being the same. Lets just leave it at that.


I'm not going to "different facets of the same thing, let's agree to disagree and pretend our views are somehow compatible" this issue. However, I am fine with ceasing discussion of it.


----------



## semtex

Kanerou said:


> I'm not going to "different facets of the same thing, let's agree to disagree and pretend our views are somehow compatible" this issue. However, I am fine with ceasing discussion of it.


Whatever............


----------



## cyamitide

semtex said:


> _Due to the fact that differences in personality types are just differences in information signals exchange with the environment, personality types can be called the information metabolism types (IM types).
> 
> Psychological functions and Information metabolism models
> _


One's type of socionics information metabolism doesn't equate to one's personality. If it did, then socionics identicals would have identical personalities which they don't. You're quoting without thinking this through.


----------



## semtex

cyamitide said:


> One's type of socionics information metabolism does equate to one's personality. If it did, then socionics identicals would have identical personalities which they don't. You're quoting without thinking this through.


 Culture, upbringing, birth order, intelligence level, etc play a huge part in shaping personality too. It's like if you plant sunflower seeds, depending on the soil quality, how much nurturing they get and variations in seed quality, no two sunflowers will be exactly the same, but a sunflower seed will never grow up to be a rose bush.


----------



## semtex

cyamitide said:


> ISTJ in MBTI uses *introverted sensing* and *extraverted logic*.
> ISTj in Socionics uses *introverted logic* and *extraverted sensing*.
> They are actually very different types in the way they perceive the world. They seem similar on the surface, only at a cursory view, but you need to look deeper than that.


Are you assuming there exists in nature both an mbti istj and also a socionics ISTj? 
Wouldn't that mean there were 32 types and not 16? 
If they perceive the world so differently, then why do they have the same traits in both systems?
How do you explain that? 

They share the same weaknesses in both systems, weak Ne. At least they agree on that much. The only logical explanation for why someone would be istj in MBTI and some other type in socionics, is because they were basing their typing on the function order, which in my view is wrong in mbti. 

It's difficult to differenciate between introverted and extroverted functions also. Since if you are a Fi dominant you will also have strong Fe. You'll just value one over the other. It can be difficult for people to make the distinction and I think this creates confusion. I've seen people switch type many times and it's usually down to a poor understanding of the functions and a poor understanding of themselves.


----------



## Aquc

@semtex
Look if I told you I had a stake, then I could either have a wooden pole with a sharpened edge, or an investment. Same word, different meaning.
Ok, now lets put people into catagories: male, female, neither. British, american, neither. Now, from this there are two sets of three types of people. This does NOT mean that there are 6 types of people. There are 9 if you want to cross the systems, or 3 if you just focus on one. People on this website focus on MBTI, so there are 16 types. If you wanted to cross it with socionomics there would be 256 types.
Lastly, the description of the types is completely irrelevant. Look at the functions, and only the functions. They are the important part. Go away with an open mind, read all of the function descriptions over, and then come back in a day or so when you have done this and then continue the discussion.


----------



## semtex

Aquc said:


> @_semtex_
> Look if I told you I had a stake, then I could either have a wooden pole with a sharpened edge, or an investment. Same word, different meaning.
> Ok, now lets put people into catagories: male, female, neither. British, american, neither. Now, from this there are two sets of three types of people. This does NOT mean that there are 6 types of people. There are 9 if you want to cross the systems, or 3 if you just focus on one. People on this website focus on MBTI, so there are 16 types. If you wanted to cross it with socionomics there would be 256 types.
> Lastly, the description of the types is completely irrelevant. Look at the functions, and only the functions. They are the important part. Go away with an open mind, read all of the function descriptions over, and then come back in a day or so when you have done this and then continue the discussion.


You didn't understand the point I was making. I've read the function descriptions many times. Forget it. I know what I know. I don't need to prove myself to anyone.


----------



## Aquc

semtex said:


> You didn't understand the point I was making.


Look, I'm not saying you're wrong. What I am saying is that if no-one except you understands the point you're making then you are either making an invalid point, or you are making it in a really bad way, and in either of those cases the best thing to do is go away and think about the original material.


----------



## aestrivex

semtex said:


> Are you assuming there exists in nature both an mbti istj and also a socionics ISTj?


The only assumption needed is that the types originate from different traditions so they are not necessarily the same.



> If they perceive the world so differently, then why do they have the same traits in both systems?
> How do you explain that?


I explain it as, they don't.


----------



## Erbse

semtex said:


> *The function order might be different in mbti and socionics, but the essence of the characters being described is the same. *
> 
> I can't understand what all the confusion is about.


There, I highlighted the confusion for you.

Neither MBTI, nor Socionics define cognitive functions - but Jung did. Both systems use his functions theory (so they claim anyway) - so how can a personality have two entirely different function setups in different systems if they both rely on the same source material?

No matter how you look at it, there is something out of place there.


----------



## aestrivex

Erbse said:


> Both systems use his functions theory (so they claim anyway)


No, they don't; socionics uses Anton Kepinski's theory information metabolism inspired by Jungian functions.


----------



## Erbse

aestrivex said:


> No, they don't; socionics uses Anton Kepinski's theory information metabolism inspired by Jungian functions.


Well, perhaps it'd have been wise to use different terms then.

Still, explains quite a bit.


----------



## semtex

Double post.


----------



## semtex

Aquc said:


> Look, I'm not saying you're wrong. What I am saying is that if no-one except you understands the point you're making then you are either making an invalid point, or you are making it in a really bad way, and in either of those cases the best thing to do is go away and think about the original material.


Well @cyamitide said that istj's and ISTj's perceive the world in completely different ways, and I asked if he thought that these two types existed in nature, as in the natural world as opposed to just existing in the minds of those who subscribe to either typology. Did he mean there were mbti istj's walking around the place and also socionics ISTj's walking amoung us. Or if there is actually just one type of istj and both of these theories are describing the same person, but using different terms to explain their thought processes.


----------



## Aquc

semtex said:


> Well @_cyamitide_ said that istj's and ISTj's perceive the world in completely different ways, and I asked if he thought that these two types existed in nature, as in the natural world as opposed to just existing in the minds of those who subscribe to either typology. Did he mean there were mbti istj's walking around the place and also socionics ISTj's walking amoung us. Or if there is actually just one type of istj and both of these theories are describing the same person, but using different terms to explain their thought processes.


Personally I read it as him saying that ISTJs and ISTjs both existed, and that your type in one doesn't define your type in the other (so someone could be both ISTP and ISTj for instance), but ultimately I don't know and I don't know enough about the subject matter to continue this discussion with you. Hopefully some other people can clear up your questions.


----------



## cyamitide

semtex said:


> Culture, upbringing, birth order, intelligence level, etc play a huge part in shaping personality too. It's like if you plant sunflower seeds, depending on the soil quality, how much nurturing they get and variations in seed quality, no two sunflowers will be exactly the same, but a sunflower seed will never grow up to be a rose bush.


That was a typo - I changed it from does to doesn't. This is exactly the point that I was trying to get across to you. That IM _doesn't_ define one's personality as that quote that you posted from that russian article claims. That there are many other factors that take precedence in defining who you are as a person than your type of IM.



semtex said:


> Are you assuming there exists in nature both an mbti istj and also a socionics ISTj?
> Wouldn't that mean there were 32 types and not 16?


I'm assuming there exist only 16 types, and that the type which is dominant in Si and supportive in Te most closely corresponds to ISTJ in MBTI and ISTp in Socionics.



> If they perceive the world so differently, then why do they have the same traits in both systems?
> How do you explain that?


Because they are quasi-*identicals*. The word "identicals" should tell you something. Quasi-identicals display similar behaviors on the surface so their descriptions are going to be similar.

Also it looks like you've missed that whole discussion we had with Rim on this forum where I explained how MBTI describes types from pov of auxiliary function for introverts and Socionics describes them from pov of dominant functions, hence their profiles aren't going to align.



> They share the same weaknesses in both systems, weak Ne.


Socionics ISTj doesn't express Ne _at all_. It's a painful, vulnerable function that ISTj would like to avoid and squelch its expressions. ISTj's dual the ENFj does precisely that - limit Ne in environment to protect their ISTj dual and create Ni information.

MBTI ISTJ experiences inferior Ne "grips", described in Form of Inferior, so Ne _is expressed_ in ISTJ only as a weak function.



> At least they agree on that much. The only logical explanation for why someone would be istj in MBTI and some other type in socionics, is because they were basing their typing on the function order, which in my view is wrong in mbti.


Alternative explanations is that considering how inaccurate typological tests are and that many people don't investigate into MBTI or Socionics in any depth, these people could be mistyped under either MBTI, or Socionics, or both.



> It's difficult to differenciate between introverted and extroverted functions also.


Eh, this discrepancy in profiles that you're citing exists only for introverted types.
It doesn't exist for extraverts. MBTI's wacky ENTP is still the Inventor ENTp/ILE in Socionics.
How do you explain this?

If you take into account what I've mentioned before, that MBTI profiles are based on highest order extraverted function while Socioncs profiles are based on dominant function, which is why their profiles sound different for introverts, and this is applicable to introverts _only_, while MBTI and Socionics profiles for introverts coincide, then this yields a good explanation for why ISTJ and ISTp descriptions differ while ENTP and ENTp do not - one description take a look at the type for pov of dominant function while the other one is describing it from pov of auxiliary function.



> Since if you are a Fi dominant you will also have strong Fe.


That's complete bollocks. Fi-types automatically discount and devalue Fe. They either ignore it or act like they are annoyed by it.



> You'll just value one over the other. It can be difficult for people to make the distinction and I think this creates confusion. I've seen people switch type many times and it's usually down to a poor understanding of the functions and a poor understanding of themselves.


If you assume that any type can be good at any function then it makes typology completely pointless. Fi-types are Fi-types because they value Te and discard or reject Fe.


----------



## esq

This thread might have stayed in ISTP forum if we wanted any ISTPs to chime in about being LSI.


----------



## DemonAbyss10

Decided to take that linked test, see how things changed compared to 3 years ago, especially considering that I am not completely stressed when taking it now.


Test Results

Your Sociotype: ILE-1Ti (ENTp)

Other Possible Types

LII (INTj): 92% as likely as ILE.
ILI (INTp): 88% as likely as ILE.
LIE (ENTj): 87% as likely as ILE.


so eh, dunno.


----------



## Figure

The most simple explanation for this entire quarrel is that a person is a person, and a typological model doesn't change that. The models come from observations of patterns in people for a given metric. Therefore, the only realistic way you could "be" two different types is if socionics and MBTI are measuring different metrics. 

It gets more complicated from there on, but I sincerely find it _highly _unlikely that a person is a perceiving, Si dom in MBTI and judging, Ti lead in socionics. The descriptions differ, but not that wildly. While I can see not relating to a type in one system, I do not see how one could say that they *do *relate to preferring both types, on the basis of functions *and *IEs. Type descriptions, yes - model units - no.


----------



## aestrivex

Figure said:


> It gets more complicated from there on, but I sincerely find it _highly _unlikely that a person is a perceiving, Si dom in MBTI and judging, Ti lead in socionics.


Well, then you don't really understand socionics.


----------



## semtex

> That was a typo - I changed it from does to doesn't. This is exactly the point that I was trying to get across to you. That IM _doesn't_ define one's personality as that quote that you posted from that russian article claims. That there are many other factors that take precedence in defining who you are as a person than your type of IM.


That's ok, I knew it was a typo. I got your meaning. :wink:




> I'm assuming there exist only 16 types, and that the type which is dominant in Si and supportive in Te most closely corresponds to ISTJ in MBTI and ISTp in Socionics.


OK, so you agree there are 16 types. Good. 
So lets look at the functions of mbti istj's and istp's and socionics ISTj's and ISTp's.
I will just look at the conscious functions for now. 

Mbti istj - Si, Te, *Fi, Ne.*

Socionics ISTj - Ti, Se,* Fi, Ne. *

The 3rd and 4th functions (IE in socionics) are Fi and Ne in both systems. Which means they have the same weak areas. Only the first two are different. 

Mbti istp - Ti, Se, Ni, Fe.
Socionics ISTp - Si, Te, Ni, Fe. 

Again they share the same weak conscious functions. 

Now lets look at how these functions and information elements are defined in both systems. 

In MBTI: 

*Introverted Sensing: *Compares present facts and experiences to past experience. Trusts the past.Stores sensory data for future use. 
The *Introverted Sensing* mind attends to, enjoys acquiring, and relying upon an internal library of detailed personal knowledge, facts, feelings, sensations, and information gleaned from experiences. Information and impressions from present experiences are archived in an orderly way into memory - which is typically a vast internal storehouse of data, details and impressions. The Introverted Sensing mind seeks rhythm, reliability, and order in its internal library and in its relationships with people and the outside world. 
*Extraverted Thinking: *Seeks logic and consistency in the outside world. Concern for external laws and rules.

And in Socionics:

Si
Your five senses perceive the physical world in all its rich sensations. Sensitive to everything that is physical. Perfect functioning of your five senses. An excellent understanding of the beauty of the world. You withdraw from inconvenience and discomfort. Ability to find the most comfortable place in the surrounding space. Understand the physical needs of people. Pragmatism, aesthetics, using minimum of effort, the skill to find convenience in everything. Rich sensations of the physical world. Strong sensory perception. High physical sensitivity. Perfect working of your five senses. Desire and skill to surround yourself and people with cosiness and comfort. Constant ability to receive the beauty of the world. Developed taste, esthetical value, tendency toward sensory pleasures. 

Te
High working capacity, efficiency and productivity. In any matter you know how to attain maximum return. Planning all actions. Understanding the appropriateness or inappropriateness of any actions. High and productive work capacity. Skill to bring to perfection the procedure for the fulfilment of any actions. Ability to adjust the trouble-free operation of any mechanisms, to carefully check procedures, to effectively direct processes. Professionalism, making of instructions, industriousness, competence, methodicalness. Skill to find the most effective mode of operation/work. Ambitious – the will to succeed. Rationalisation, productivity, sequence. 


As you can see both Si and Te are defined differently in both systems. So mbti Si does not mean the same thing as socionics Si. And mbti Te is not the same as socionics Te. They are different things but they have the same name. Like Stake ( a pointy stick) and Stake ( stake in a company) Same word, vastly different things. 

So an mbti istj has mbti's Si as it's leading function and mbti's Te as it's second function.
A socionics ISTj has socionics Ti as it's leading function, and socionics Se as it's second function. 

So if someone was unsure of their type they might look at the functions and may find they have mbti Si as their leading function as defined in mbti, and socionics Ti as their leading function as defined in socionics. So this would explain why someone would claim to be istj in mbti and ISTp in socionics. Different aspects of the Si definition could resonate with an istj, where they mistake Si's definition for what should actually be attributed to their Ti. But when they look at their weak areas, they will find they are either weakest at Fe or weakeast in Ne. These functions shouldn't be overlooked. It's easier for people to know what they suck at, than it is to identify their strengths. 

Socionics defines Ti as:
Ti
Skill to separate the main thing from the secondary thing. Scrupulousness in studying facts, the skill to see the connection between facts. System thinking. Bringing everything into a system. Rationality, accuracy, systematisation, ordering, consistency, logicality. Analytical mind. Skill to find a cause and effect connection in everything. Organisation of structural order. Tendency toward abstract, system thinking. Skill to separate the main thing from the secondary thing. Theorisation. Tendency toward brainwork and the construction of abstract logical models. Strong, confident logic. 

So you can see how mbti Si could be confused with Socionics Ti. 

So lets look at the two weakest functions for both istj and ISTj and istp and ISTp respectfully.

The istj's weakest function is Ne. So how does mbti define Ne and how does socionics define Ne? 

Mbti - Ne:
*Extraverted Intuition* scans the external world to *explore new ideas, new people, and emergent possibilities. *The Extraverted Intuitive* mind is imaginative, *inventive, and innovative - seeing and describing ways things can be reshaped, altered, or improved. It naturally energizes people and engages action towards *a vision of what could be . . . of future** possibilities. *

Socionics Ne:

Ne
Very strong imagination, *bright and interesting imagination.* *Instant understanding of the possibilities of a situation.* Spontaneous decision making. Interest in everything new and unusual. Creative thinker and inventor. Inclined to things that are unusual. Inventiveness, rich fantasy, impulsiveness, *quickly respond in unusual situations.* Skill to understand the essence of things and phenomena. *Generating ideas.* Understanding the prospects and possibilities of an idea becoming into a reality. Skill to find a way out from any complex ethical situation. Skill to see the qualities of people and readiness to tell everyone about them. 


The definition of Ne as being concerned with new possibilities and new ideas is the same in both systems. There's a bit more to it than that, but for now lets just say they are more or less the same as opposed to the definitions for "Si" in both systems. Which I pointed out earlier, are vastly different.

So lets look at the weakest function for itsp and ISTp.

Mbti - Fe:
Concerned with finding harmony and abiding by social structures based on subjective beliefs and experiences.

People who use Fe are hyper aware of others' feelings. People who use Fe are accomodating of others' feelings, and *making others feel good tends to be their goal.*

Socionics - Fe:
Fe
Understanding the most concealed emotions of other people. Skill to understand the mood of other people and to influence it. Ability to bring out the necessary emotions in yourself and other people. Bright emotionalism.* Skill to create around yourself joyful and holiday/celebratory mood.* Raising the energy of the surrounding people. Talkativeness. Tendency to avoid negative emotions. Jovial merry person. Wealth of sincere experiences and feelings. Romanticism, passion. Bright and strong emotionalism. Cheerfulness. 

Again, these definitions aren't wildy at odds with each other. 

istj's and ISTj's are not good at creating joyful celebratory moods in those around them, but they do value it when Fe types do this for them. Because Fe is an unconscious function they don't understand how to use it well but they do value it. 

istp's and ISTp's don't appreciate it when Fe types create boisterous emotional atmospheres. Somebody bursting into song will have an istp running for the hills. 


For istj's and ISTj's, new experiences and new people are not a source of pleasure for them. They are quite content to live their lives in familiar surroundings with the same familiar faces. Since Ne is their weakest function. 

istp's and ISTp's often find themselves stuck in a rut because Ne is an unconscious function for them, they don't know how to generate new experiences on their own. But they are thankful to Ne types when they generate new experiences for them. 





> Because they are quasi-*identicals*. The word "identicals" should tell you something. Quasi-identicals display similar behaviors on the surface so their descriptions are going to be similar.


I was referring to how istj's and ISTj's were similar. And how istp's and ISTp's were similar. 





> Socionics ISTj doesn't express Ne _at all_.
> MBTI ISTJ experiences inferior Ne "grips", described in Form of Inferior, so Ne is expressed in ISTJ as a weak function.


Can I ask where you got that information from? All the literature I have read say that ISTj's have Ne as their 4th function. Here are some examples. 

_*Ne: The fourth function of the ISTj *Ne, by which the essence of ideas arrive and insights into their development arise. Since the ISTj type thrives in a world of concrete and non-abstract structures, it may be rendered difficult for this type to collect multiple perspectives, concepts, ideas, and beliefs for purposes of consideration. In result of this inability, expected behaviors should include an tendency to misjudge the true potential in people, stubborn misguided stereotypes, sudden jumping to biased conclusions without rhyme, thought, reason, or explanation, misunderstanding and forming unnecessarily negative views towards the beliefs and intentions of others, inability to consider new methods and ways of doing things, lack of originality, and an impatience with disadvantage. 

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/7770-resilient-istj-socionics.html



_


*1**2**4**3**6**5**7**8*
 
*ego**super-ego**super-id**id*
 
*strong*_weak__weak_*strong*

_

_
*LSI* 

As you can see, the black triangle ( Ne ) is in the fourth position. 



> Eh, this discrepancy in profiles that you're citing exists only for introverted types.
> It doesn't exist for extraverts. MBTI's wacky ENTP is still the Inventor ENTp/ILE in Socionics.
> How do you explain this?


As I said earlier, the definitions for Ne don't differ wildly between both systems. Plus there was no rearranging of the functions for the extroverts in mbti. 






> That's complete bollocks. Fi-types automatically discount and devalue Fe. They either ignore it or act like they are annoyed by it.


See the above table. If Fi is in the ego block then that person will have Fe in their id block and this is marked as strong. Yet not valued.




> If you assume that any type can be good at any function then it makes typology completely pointless. Fi-types are Fi-types because they value Te and discard or reject Fe.


Fi types will value harmony and can be good at affecting the emotions of those around them. They just don't do it very often and don't agree with people manipulating the emotions of others. 

Here is a description of how an enfp uses Fe: 

*Extroverted Ethics (Fe,







)*

The IEE appreciates situations where people are enjoying a positive emotional atmosphere as in having fun and joking together, and is quite adept at creating them himself, but does not see creating or promoting them a top priority, nor does he actively look for people who maintain or need such an atmosphere; too high a focus on that is seen by an IEE as overdone. He can be very empathetic and will frequently comfort his friends and acquaintances, mostly letting them vent to him, offering suggestions as to what to do about it. These are usually practical. The IEE may offer a more optimistic viewpoint, but will not press the matter if the optimism is not received well. He is usually genuinely concerned, but refuses to let the negative energy affect him. This may eventually become tiring if it persists as he will feel guilty for being happy in the face of those close to him being miserable. The IEE does not like conflict between people one bit; he would rather stay on everyone's good side and keep in good terms with both sides of a conflict, preferring not to be judged by his affiliation with one side or another. In such situations he says very little that would give away where he truly sides on an issue. 

Socionics Types: IEE-ENFp


----------



## semtex

I just came across this article on introverted sensing. 

_Introverted Sensing personality types are dependable, reliable and trustworthy. They like to belong to solid organisations that are reasonable in their ambitions and loyal to their employees. They feel useful when their roles and responsibilities are clearly established and they can monitor their activities and productivity in tangible ways. They tend to be rather modest,* traditional and conventional,* to like sensible clothing, to be thrifty, careful and wise with both money and possessions. 
_
_Once they accept a project, they will see it to the end*. *They manage their time well and are realistic about how much time and resources will be needed._

_*They tend to like to stay in one neighbourhood, often choosing to live close to where they were themselves raised.* They are often involved with volunteer organisations and have a developed sense of citizenship and accountability. When they purchase something, it is after careful consideration; rarely will they buy something without having a known need or use for it. They may keep possessions for a lifetime and treasure those that were given to them._

_They tend to have a good memory for specific facts that are necessary in their day-to-day life at work and at home. They accumulate facts and details to orient themselves, relying on repeated experiences that have been proven trustworthy. A fact once experienced may be the product of circumstance and happenstance; it is not in and of itself reliable. When an introverted sensing type hears an idea, they rummage through reams of archived facts to find an experience that provides information for the relevance and realism of an idea. *When an introverted sensing type utters, "It's never been done!" they are saying that no information about the relevance or usefulness of the idea is available to them. They tend to shy away from surprises and what is perceived as unnecessary change. *
_


It struck me reading it that it's possible that when Myers Briggs were faffing around with the functions, and called istj's and isfj's Si types, they looked at their traits and attributed their love of tradition as having something to do with Si. When in actual fact it had everything to do with them having weak Ne. 

They should have just left the function order alone. It was just fine the way it was.


----------



## semtex

esq said:


> This thread might have stayed in ISTP forum if we wanted any ISTPs to chime in about being LSI.


In my experience istp's generally stay out of discussions like this. They don't generally argue back when it comes to theoretical discussions. Itsj's on the other hand like to chime in to discredit nearly everything I say. LOL. Relations of conflict I suppose. hee hee. : ) 

If it says istp in their profile and they are in an argument like this, chances are you are really dealing with an istj (ISTj) who is caught up in the details of the system they were first introduced to.


----------



## Zero11

@_semtex_

The IE´s in the super-ego block are the 8th and 7th function correlates in the MBTI. 
ENFp (Ne Fi) - ESTp (Se Ti) Super-ego Relationship.

http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...-between-socionics-mb-typing.html#post3426241


----------



## semtex

In mbti Si is defined as: *Comparing present facts and experiences to past experience. Trusts the past.
Stores sensory data for future use. * *Recalling past experiences, remembering detailed data and what it is linked to.*
*Being heavily influenced by prior experiences. Distrusting new information that doesn't match. Assuming an understanding of a situation because it resembles a prior one. Focusing on facts and stored data. Giving lots of specific, sequential details about something. Rating and making comparison.*

Socionics describes Si as: *Your five senses perceive the physical world in all its rich sensations. Sensitive to everything that is physical. Perfect functioning of your five senses. An excellent understanding of the beauty of the world. You withdraw from inconvenience and discomfort. Ability to find the most comfortable place in the surrounding space. Understand the physical needs of people. Pragmatism, aesthetics, using minimum of effort, the skill to find convenience in everything. Rich sensations of the physical world. Strong sensory perception. High physical sensitivity. Perfect working of your five senses. Desire and skill to surround yourself and people with cosiness and comfort. Constant ability to receive the beauty of the world. Developed taste, esthetical value, tendency toward sensory pleasures. *


So looking at how Si is defined in both systems, you can see that mbti *Si*, *does not equal* socionics *Si.* Would it help if we gave mbti Si and socionics Si different names? 
Will we call mbti Si "apple" and socionics Si "orange". 
They are vastly different. 
They are not the same. 



So when you say an mbti istj uses Si as their main function and a socionics ISTp uses Si as their main function, you can not say they are the same, since the Si means something completely different in both systems. One is an apple, the other is an orange. 



Written in an equation I'll use this symbol ( # ) to represent "does not equal" 


mbti istj # socionics ISTp
mbti Si +Te # socioncs Si + Te
apple # orange.


mbti Si, Te,* Fi, Ne* # socionics Si, Te, *Ni, Fe*. . 

Therefor...

mbti ISTJ # socionics ISTp.


The _definition_ for the first two functions ( Si + Te ) for istj and ISTp are completely different, I outlined their differences in an earlier post, and the 3rd and 4th functions aren't even the same functions. Mbti istj uses Fi and Ne and socionics ISTp uses Ni and Fe. 

Fi # Ni

Ne # Fe. 

So mbti istj does not equal socionics ISTp. 
It's mathematically impossible. 
And you can't argue with maths. 


Yet when you look at the _traits_ of an mbti istj and a socionics ISTj, they are the same. For instance...

*MBTI ISTJ..................................................................... SOCIONICS ISTj 
*
Likes rules and order.......................................................Likes rules and order 
Don't like change........................................................... Don't like change
Tendency to be contolling ...............................................Tendency to be controlling
Conflict with enfp's and ENFp's......................................... Conflict with ENFp's and enfp's


*MBTI ISTP.....................................................................SOCIONICS ISTp*

Good in a crisis, due to their disregard................................Good in a crisis, due to their disregard
for rules........................................................................for rules.
In tune with the physical..................................................In tune with the physical
environment...................................................................environment
Get stuck in a rut and begin to..........................................Get stuck in a rut and begin to
feel despondant because of it........................................... feel despondant because of it 


You can read the profiles for both and play spot the similarites between the traits of istp and ISTp yourselves. 

The person that mbti calls "istj" is the same person that socionics calls "ISTj". 
Both systems are describing the same person, just going about it in different ways. 
They fulfill the same role in society. 


I can't see how I can make it any simpler than that.


----------



## cyamitide

semtex said:


> OK, so you agree there are 16 types. Good.
> So lets look at the functions of mbti istj's and istp's and socionics ISTj's and ISTp's.
> I will just look at the conscious functions for now.
> 
> Mbti istj - Si, Te, *Fi, Ne.*
> 
> Socionics ISTj - Ti, Se,* Fi, Ne. *
> 
> The 3rd and 4th functions (IE in socionics) are Fi and Ne in both systems. Which means they have the same weak areas. Only the first two are different.


You're assuming that MBTI numbering of functions corresponds to Socionics numbering. And well, it doesn't.

MBTI lists 4 valued functions on profiles.
Socionics lists 2 valued function, 2 rejected/repressed functions, another 2 valued functions, another 2 rejected/repressed functions. 

If you look up which quadra Socionics ISTj belongs to, you will see that it is part of Beta quadra. Beta quadra values aspects of Ti, Se, *Ni, Fe *(Quadras). The reason that Socionics lists Fi & Ne on profile of ISTj is because the profiles are based on Model A in which functions are not numbered in the same was as on MBTI profiles. Socionics has developed completely different numbering system.

Now lets look back at your istj
The valued functions of Socionics ISTj are *Ti, Se, Ni, Fe.*
The valued functions of MBTI's ISTJ are *Si, Te, Fi, Ne.*
As you can see these types don't share a single valued function in common. And as Figure already mentioned, it is highly unlikely for someone to change from Si dominant to Ti dominant between the two systems at the same time completely flipping over all 7 of their other functions.



semtex said:


> In MBTI:
> 
> *Introverted Sensing: *Compares present facts and experiences to past experience. *Trusts the past.Stores sensory data for future use. *
> The *Introverted Sensing* mind attends to, enjoys acquiring, and relying upon an internal library of detailed personal knowledge, facts, feelings, sensations, and information gleaned from experiences. Information and impressions from present experiences are archived in an orderly way into memory - which is typically a vast internal storehouse of data, details and impressions. The Introverted Sensing mind seeks rhythm, reliability, and order in its internal library and in its relationships with people and the outside world.
> 
> And in Socionics:
> 
> Si - Your five senses perceive the physical world in all its rich sensations. Sensitive to everything that is physical. Perfect functioning of your five senses. An excellent understanding of the beauty of the world. You withdraw from inconvenience and discomfort. Ability to find the most comfortable place in the surrounding space. Understand the physical needs of people. Pragmatism, aesthetics, using minimum of effort, the skill to find convenience in everything. Rich sensations of the physical world. Strong sensory perception. High physical sensitivity. Perfect working of your five senses. Desire and skill to surround yourself and people with cosiness and comfort. Constant ability to receive the beauty of the world. Developed taste, esthetical value, tendency toward sensory pleasures.
> 
> As you can see both Si [..] is defined differently in both systems. So mbti Si does not mean the same thing as socionics Si.


Both MBTI and Socionics descriptions of Si mention atunement to the senses, so at least can we agree that Si is a sensory function in both MBTI and Socionics.

Reading further, if you'll notice MBTI's Si description mentions that Si stores _sensory impressions_ and information for future use, which is the kind of information that a person needs to make judgement about beauty, proportion, comfort, health, convenience, etc. all those things mentioned on Socionics profile of Si.


----------



## aestrivex

cyamitide said:


> Now lets look back at your istj
> The valued functions of Socionics ISTj are *Ti, Se, Ni, Fe.*
> The valued functions of MBTI's ISTJ are *Si, Te, Fi, Ne.*


What's a valued function of an MBTI type? Do MBTI types have quadras and valued functions now? Find me some literature -- even the most speculative of notions -- on a quadra-like organization of functions in MBTI.


----------



## cyamitide

aestrivex said:


> What's a valued function of an MBTI type? Do MBTI types have quadras and valued functions now? Find me some literature -- even the most speculative of notions -- on a quadra-like organization of functions in MBTI.


read profiles of MBTI types and many of them will list the functions that are assigned to the types -- this is where semtex reposted them from -- these profiles are available in sticky threads and article subforums here as well as countless MBTI websites, presentations, and books


----------



## aestrivex

cyamitide said:


> read profiles of MBTI types and many of them will list the functions that are assigned to the types -- this is where semtex reposted them from -- these profiles are available in sticky threads and article subforums here as well as countless MBTI websites, presentations, and books


The words *quadra-like organization* were important in my post, and you have ignored them. Which type profiles refer to the same organization of valued and unvalued of functions as socionics quadras? That is the claim you have made. I have read the "sticky threads and article subforms and countless websites presentations and books" and I have found nothing like this.

Here's an example of the most favorable source you will find for your viewpoint: Lenore Thomson's descriptions:

http://personalitycafe.com/istj-articles/108012-lenore-thomsons-istj.html

There is no mention of valued or unvalued functions. *That* is what i want.


----------



## Zero11

Cyamitide just derived some definitons (01: conscious/unconscious (shadow functions) 02: valued/unvalued)
it´s not directly mentioned in MBTI hybrid theories, but implied

IEI example: 


Conscious/valuedShadow/unconscious/unvaluedNi: leadingi > ENe: ignoringFe: creativeE > iFi: demonstrativeTi: mobilizing/HAi > ETe: vulnerable/PoLRSe: suggestive/DSE > iSi: Role

Information Elements are designed to describe more the Output of a function than the essence of it (how they work / how they are perceived by other IE´s), which leads to different definitions on different Viewpoints. They are essentially the same :mellow: the IE describing Outputs are needed for the inter-type relationship dynamics.

Si for example works as a replay function in order to renew forgotten information which isn´t perceived in the same way as it works outward.



semtex said:


> Yet when you look at the _traits_ of an mbti istj and a socionics ISTj, they are the same. For instance...
> 
> *MBTI ISTJ. (aux Te)...................................................... SOCIONICS ISTj (leading Ti) =judgment
> *
> Likes rules and order.......................................................Likes rules and order
> Don't like change........................................................... Don't like change
> Tendency to be contolling ...............................................Tendency to be controlling
> Conflict with enfp's and ENFp's......................................... Conflict with ENFp's and enfp's
> 
> 
> *MBTI ISTP....(aux.Se)...................................................SOCIONICS ISTp* *(leading Si) =perception*
> 
> Good in a crisis, due to their disregard................................Good in a crisis, due to their disregard
> for rules........................................................................for rules.
> In tune with the physical..................................................In tune with the physical
> environment...................................................................environment
> Get stuck in a rut and begin to..........................................Get stuck in a rut and begin to
> feel despondant because of it........................................... feel despondant because of it


modified :wink:


----------



## semtex

cyamitide said:


> You're assuming that MBTI numbering of functions corresponds to Socionics numbering. And well, it doesn't.
> 
> MBTI lists 4 valued functions on profiles.
> Socionics lists 2 valued function, 2 rejected/repressed functions, another 2 valued functions, another 2 rejected/repressed functions.
> 
> If you look up which quadra Socionics ISTj belongs to, you will see that it is part of Beta quadra. Beta quadra values aspects of Ti, Se, *Ni, Fe *(Quadras). The reason that Socionics lists Fi & Ne on profile of ISTj is because the profiles are based on Model A in which functions are not numbered in the same was as on MBTI profiles. Socionics has developed completely different numbering system.
> 
> Now lets look back at your istj
> The valued functions of Socionics ISTj are *Ti, Se, Ni, Fe.*
> The valued functions of MBTI's ISTJ are *Si, Te, Fi, Ne.*
> As you can see these types don't share a single valued function in common. And as Figure already mentioned, it is highly unlikely for someone to change from Si dominant to Ti dominant between the two systems at the same time completely flipping over all 7 of their other functions.
> 
> 
> Both MBTI and Socionics descriptions of Si mention atunement to the senses, so at least can we agree that Si is a sensory function in both MBTI and Socionics.
> 
> *Reading further, if you'll notice MBTI's Si description mentions that Si stores sensory impressions and information for future use, which is the kind of information that a person needs to make judgement about beauty, proportion, comfort, health, convenience, etc. all those things mentioned on Socionics profile of Si.*


Well how do you explain why, I, as an enfp, am so damn stylish then? 

: )


----------



## semtex

Zero11 said:


> Cyamitide just derived some definitons (01: conscious/unconscious (shadow functions) 02: valued/unvalued)
> it´s not directly mentioned in MBTI hybrid theories, but implied
> 
> IEI example:
> 
> 
> Conscious/valuedShadow/unconscious/unvaluedNi: leadingi > ENe: ignoringFe: creativeE > iFi: demonstrativeTi: mobilizing/HAi > ETe: vulnerable/PoLRSe: suggestive/DSE > iSi: Role
> 
> Information Elements are designed to describe more the Output of a function than the essence of it (how they work / how they are perceived by other IE´s), which leads to different definitions on different Viewpoints. They are essentially the same :mellow: the IE describing Outputs are needed for the inter-type relationship dynamics.
> 
> Si for example works as a replay function in order to renew forgotten information which isn´t perceived in the same way as it works outward.
> 
> 
> 
> modified :wink:


*OK, question for you. 
What kind of thinking is this? *

_ Order and organization, being objective, detached, able to discriminate, and using logic. Naturally seek to understand cause and effect - using an orderly chain of reasoning to establish the relationships. Seeks the truth, getting to the heart of the matter in an objective way. Principles and well organized foundations for beliefs. It is the engine that devises strategies and creates organized, conceptual structures._


----------



## Zero11

@_semtex
_ 
T > F

why?


----------



## aestrivex

Zero11 said:


> Cyamitide just derived some definitons (01: conscious/unconscious (shadow functions) 02: valued/unvalued)
> it´s not directly mentioned in MBTI hybrid theories, but implied


How and where is it "implied?" The chart you provided trivially divides between quadra-valued and quadra-unvalued elements for an IEI, but what it has to do with shadow functions in MBTI is completely unclear.


----------



## aestrivex

semtex said:


> _ Order and organization, being objective, detached, able to discriminate, and using logic. Naturally seek to understand cause and effect - using an orderly chain of reasoning to establish the relationships. Seeks the truth, getting to the heart of the matter in an objective way. Principles and well organized foundations for beliefs. It is the engine that devises strategies and creates organized, conceptual structures._


In socionics, it is most close to Ti.



> Well how do you explain why, I, as an enfp, am so damn stylish then?


Easy, you are no manner of IEE whatsoever.


----------



## Entropic

semtex said:


> _ Order and organization, being objective, detached, able to discriminate, and using logic. Naturally seek to understand cause and effect - using an orderly chain of reasoning to establish the relationships. Seeks the truth, getting to the heart of the matter in an objective way. Principles and well organized foundations for beliefs. It is the engine that devises strategies and creates organized, conceptual structures._





aestrivex said:


> In socionics, it is most close to Ti.


Funnily enough, I think it sounds like you, especially the casual-deterministic type.


----------



## semtex

Zero11 said:


> @_semtex
> _
> T > F
> 
> why?


Ha ha. Correct. 
I was just fucking with you. I got it from here. 

*How does Thinking work; how is it experienced?
*
*Thinking is about order and organization, being objective, detached, able to discriminate, and using logic. Thinking preference people naturally seek to understand cause and effect - using an orderly chain of reasoning to establish the relationships. The Thinking mind seeks the truth, getting to the heart of the matter in an objective way. We experience being in our Thinking function when we are being dispassionate, able to make decisions at arms-length from whatever emotional turmoil may surround a situation. Thinking is about principles and well organized foundations for beliefs. It is the engine that devises strategies and creates organized, conceptual structures.
*
*Te - How is Thinking expressed when it is turned outward?**Extraverted Thinking's* focus is order. It is organizing and ordering the outside world; organizing both people and things to achieve a purpose. It is using logic and reasoning in dialogue with others. It is directing action, calling plays, and making decisions. It is purposeful sorting out; discriminating among alternatives. Extraverted Thinking asks questions, collects information in an orderly way, and solves problems in a systematic manner. *Extraverted Thinking (Te)* is dominant in ESTJ & ENTJ and supportive in ISTJ & INTJ personality types.


*Ti - How is Thinking experienced when it is turned inward?* The *Introverted Thinking* mind presumes logical order rules the Universe; illogic is dismissed as just so much mental clutter that needs to be swept out of the mind. Beliefs, understandings, and information is taken in and logically organized in clusters of thought, with principles at the foundation. It strives to fit new pieces of information into clusters of thought where it most logically fits. It sorts out and discriminates that which makes logical sense from that which does not. Like a detective, the Introverted Thinking mind is drawn to mysteries - seeking clues and root causes - to solve a problem or a riddle. *Introverted Thinking (Ti)* is dominant in ISTP & INTP and supportive in ESTP and ENTP personality types.


http://www.enfpforum.com/ENFPBeginnersGuide/Functions/MBTIThinkingTevsTI.aspx


----------



## semtex

aestrivex said:


> In socionics, it is most close to Ti.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, you are no manner of IEE whatsoever.



Oh oh.
Bow down everyone. 
We seem to have an expert in our midsts. 

Get out the red carpet.


----------



## esq

MBTI P might be partially Socionics Ne, at least in my way of looking at things. 

In my earlier post, I meant to imply that zero ISTPs have chimed in about being LSI, in case nobody caught that. Please appreciate my empiricism.


----------



## madhatter

@esq

I'm ISTP in MBTI, but I'm most likely LII in Socionics, though I do relate to some things about LSI. However, I have not chimed in on this debate, because I am not well-versed in Socionics. Although, I can think of many ISTPs on this forum who probably have Ti as their base function at the very least, and at least one or two for sure that I can see being LSI.


----------



## Aleksei

AimfortheBrain said:


> They say that ISTjs are Si dom in socionics, but all the descriptions sound like MBTI ISTPs. For those of you who know about socionics, what do you think of this?


You're probably reading the wrong descriptions. Pretty much everything I know about LSIs (and I know plenty) pegs them as exemplars not only of STJ, but moreso of *E*STJ rather than I. That said, LSI-Se being ISTP is quite conceivable and far from uncommon.


----------



## AimfortheBrain

i just visitied this site for the first time in a month and my thread now has 12 pages! woah....


----------



## cyamitide

AimfortheBrain said:


> i just visitied this site for the first time in a month and my thread now has 12 pages! woah....


Your life is now complete.


----------



## AimfortheBrain

cyamitide said:


> Your life is now complete.


this is true


----------



## Sol_

preferrences in MBT and Socionics are compatible
ISTP in MBT is ISTP in Socionics


----------

