# How do people even get into Socionics?



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

I've only ever found one English book on Socionics (and it was expensive). I found a couple of websites that don't seem untrustworthy, but having a website or two as the only information source(s) seems strange and unreliable.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Spine Crusher said:


> having a website or two as the only information source(s) seems strange and unreliable.


As opposed to all of the MBTI-themed websites written in Comic Sans?

I'll answer for myself. MBTI was too vague and optimistic in its descriptions and I already knew of Psychological Types. Socionics offers a sociological purpose that MBTI does not. Socionics is first and foremost a theory of intertype relations.

Otherwise, yes. Socionics originates from the Soviet Union and hasn't spread so much to the west, so sources are few and far between. Some of the better sources are the articles section of 16types.info and wikisocion. Sociotype.com is an alright starting point. Socionics.com is bad.


----------



## Indiana Jones Fan (Jan 24, 2017)

I discovered Socionics through the Internet. I find myself extremely unsatisfied with MBTI and don't really relate to any of the types of that particular typology. While I don't consider any personality typology system to be "real" or "true," Socionics is vastly superior to Myers-Briggs, in my opinion. Socionics just seems better balanced, seems less reliant of stereotypes (or maybe I'm just imagining things), lacks the obnoxious pro-N/anti-S bias of MBTI (Socionics is unquestionably the fairer typology system), and describes me far better. I just wouldn't hand somebody a description of any MBTI type to somebody I don't know and say "this describes me." In Socionics, I'm probably a Gamma introtim (I think ILI/INTp is the more likely of the two), and I think that sums up more personality better than anything MBTI can conjure up.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

I use Wikisocion for info since it makes it easy to look up specific things I want to know, but learning about it has been a long and slow process due to the lack of guidance and its niche status in the anglophonic world. There is still a lot about it I don't understand, but I have learned ideas and concepts that help me substantially in understanding and explaining observations I have had. I also notice that oftentimes when people suggest tweaks to the roles of cognitive functions in MBTI, their suggestions align closely with some of the ideas of Socionics. It is a powerful system, though difficult to employ.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

My supposed dual who happened to be a very unapologetic thinker introduced me to it and also threw Augusta's definitions and some articles at my general direction as well. Needless to say I trusted her to ensure the reliability of the information by weeding out the bs.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

I honestly don't really understand all that terminology... It looks... weird... With the shapes and all... quadras... and... ego blocks... I honestly don't get it... So how do I start understanding it? I just took a test, it said I was an INTj (what's with the little j?  ) I know I'm an MBTI INTJ and an Enneagram 8, but... can anyone point to where I can find basic information like... a good beginners guide to Socionics?

PS: I have doubts regarding the test result... It seems to describe something like an INTP in MBTI, which I'm definitely not! So, anyone know any good tests?


----------



## Terry_McMillan (Jan 23, 2018)

1nquisitor said:


> I honestly don't really understand all that terminology... It looks... weird... With the shapes and all... quadras... and... ego blocks... I honestly don't get it... So how do I start understanding it? I just took a test, it said I was an INTj (what's with the little j?  ) I know I'm an MBTI INTJ and an Enneagram 8, but... can anyone point to where I can find basic information like... a good beginners guide to Socionics?
> 
> PS: I have doubts regarding the test result... It seems to describe something like an INTP in MBTI, which I'm definitely not! So, anyone know any good tests?


 @Bastard 's reply above has some good sources on Socionics. 

Tests can be deceiving. If you (INTJ in MBTI) are sure that you use Ni and Te, than you're probably ILI (INTp). LII is similar to INTP in MBTI - both use Ti and Ne.


----------



## Terry_McMillan (Jan 23, 2018)

I don't remember how exactly I stumbled across Socionics and sociotype.com in particular (probably googled my supposed type or I found a link here on PerC), but reading articles there was interesting and I started to study it.

People here already provided some good sources on Socionics. Finding a person who's into it would also help a lot.


----------



## Indiana Jones Fan (Jan 24, 2017)

Terry_McMillan said:


> @Bastard 's reply above has some good sources on Socionics.
> 
> Tests can be deceiving. If you (INTJ in MBTI) are sure that you use Ni and Te, than you're probably ILI (INTp). LII is similar to INTP in MBTI - both use Ti and Ne.


I'm no expert on any typology system by any means, but I don't think there's an easy correlation between Socionics and MBTI types. I'm not sure that the information elements in the former are the same as the cognitive functions in the latter (this article says that they're different). In other words, the j/p switch for introverts may be bogus (of course, I could be totally wrong). Also, 1nquistor mentioned being Enneagram Type 8, and I don't think E8 is generally associated with either LII/INTj or ILI/INTp. E8, when it comes to Socionics, is generally associated with strong :f: (extroverted sensing). Of course, E8 LII or E8 ILI might still be possible, but I don't think that those are common combinations.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Terry_McMillan said:


> @Bastard 's reply above has some good sources on Socionics.
> 
> Tests can be deceiving. If you (INTJ in MBTI) are sure that you use Ni and Te, than you're probably ILI (INTp). LII is similar to INTP in MBTI - both use Ti and Ne.


So, if tests aren't good... How do I find out my type?


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

1nquisitor said:


> So, if tests aren't good... How do I find out my type?


He didn't say that.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

1) by being Russian
2) by geeking out over this shit


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Bastard said:


> He didn't say that.


Yes, but deceiving = bad


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Terry_McMillan said:


> @Bastard 's reply above has some good sources on Socionics.
> 
> Tests can be deceiving. If you (INTJ in MBTI) are sure that you use Ni and Te, than you're probably ILI (INTp). LII is similar to INTP in MBTI - both use Ti and Ne.


This is a common misconception. Whether or not you think you "use Ni and Te" in MBTI has little to do with what you'll end up deciding you best fit in Socionics.

MBTI INTJ is actually most similar to Socionics INTj. The functions take on different meanings.


----------



## bremen (Apr 25, 2016)

At least in the west, I'm guessing people that are into Mbti will eventually hear about it and branch out from there. Even if you don't go on socionics website, you can still learn about it from posts in a lot of typology forums or just from talking with people in the community.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

a problematic upbringing, little support from parents, etc


----------



## Terry_McMillan (Jan 23, 2018)

Indiana Jones Fan said:


> I don't think there's an easy correlation between Socionics and MBTI types.


You're right, there isn't. For example, INTJ has both similarities and differences with both ILI and LII. The same could be said about INFJ and EII/IEI.



Indiana Jones Fan said:


> In other words, the j/p switch for introverts may be bogus (of course, I could be totally wrong).


The switch isn't universal, but it should be considered when a person is trying to type themselves.



Indiana Jones Fan said:


> Also, 1nquistor mentioned being Enneagram Type 8, and I don't think E8 is generally associated with either LII/INTj or ILI/INTp. E8, when it comes to Socionics, is generally associated with strong :f: (extroverted sensing). Of course, E8 LII or E8 ILI might still be possible, but I don't think that those are common combinations.


Te-subtype of ILI goes pretty well with enneagram 8, in my opinion. LSEs with their Te could be really 8-ish, believe me.


----------



## Terry_McMillan (Jan 23, 2018)

1nquisitor said:


> So, if tests aren't good... How do I find out my type?


When it comes to myself, a person who's really into Socionics typed me. I suggest you to find such a person: they'd explain to you everything you need to know. Then, after they type you, try to find everything about your supposed type on sociotype.com and the16types.info - try to see if you relate to it. And learn cognitive functions, of course.


----------



## Terry_McMillan (Jan 23, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> MBTI INTJ is actually most similar to Socionics INTj.


I disagree.

Similarities

INTJ and ILI: cunning; tactical mind; deeps feelings they don't want others to see; could be arrogant and agressive (when it's ILI-Te);

INTJ and LII: determination; action- and effectiveness-oriented; don't like when you order them around;

INTP and ILI: could be lazy;

INTP and LII: robotic and logical machinery vibe; more gentle than INTJ; bad at being in charge.

Maybe it's a matter of perception, but I see that INTJ is more like ILI than LII.


----------



## Sky_Nova_20 (Sep 10, 2017)

I think the reason why people don't really get into Socionics is because of that fact it's much more complex to understand than MBTI, since there's a variety of information that people would find unvaluable, complicated, and appalling. It's also because of the fact that it didn't originate from North America. I've seen rants/opinions against Socionics and most people tend to stick with MBTI, because of that. I also dislike the fact that people who get into Socionics will only look at the duality, conflicting and other relations (simply called intertype relations), and the 7th/"PoLR function" and disregard the other things Socionics had researched. This is kind of strange for the people who are extremely interested in psychological/personality theories, but at the same time, it can actually be completely understandable. There is also subtypes, quadras, J/P inverse (many people view this differently), models such as Model A and Model G, dimensionality, etc. I've also seen people disregarding the cognitive functions theory lately, but I understand why. People simply go with MBTI first, mainly because it is a much more popular theory (many people learned it from 16personalities.com), easier to understand and wrap it up, but it's also more vague as a whole. I'm not very familiar with Socionics, but I will probably be looking forward to it, although I can either be lazy or busy, depending on my mood. It's also because I'm on a phone rather than on a computer. I can't really access large details on my phone, since I tend to skim over details a lot on my phone. It's also harder to understand and the type/function descriptions in Socionics aren't completely identical to MBTI. There are resources for understanding Socionics, but I heard Wikisocion is the best, probably because of threcontent. I think learning more about Socioncs everyday helps you take an interest in it, but I believe it's going to take a while, due to its complexity.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Terry_McMillan said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Similarities
> 
> ...


It's a matter of you creating superficial archetypes, out of what I'm not even sure, and using them to represent types.

INTP as "robotic and logical machinery vibe" while INTJs, actual judgers, aren't? This isn't even accurate.

What the hell is a "cunning, tactical mind" and how do INTJs and ILIs have more of that than INTPs and LIIs?

From where are you deriving anything in any of these types pertaining to "gentleness"?

Since when don't INTPs also "deep feelings they don't want others to see"?

_On and on and on..._

Is this really what you think passes as typology?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

As others pointed out, I too found MBTI lacking and unsatisfying, and Socionics was around so there's been nothing difficult in "getting into" it.
There's a decent number of books on Socionics (in Russian though), but pretty much all the basics are translated and can be found on wikisocion or among 16types articles. Socionics has an actual system and approach information elements in a differentiated manner, so as a personality theory it's easier and clearer in that respect, I think.

And yeah, the very definition of cognitive functions and information elements differ, as they refer to different things even on such basic level (the former are theorized to be properties of the brain, whereas the latter are characteristics of external reality). IE definitions also differ, furthermore there's that key feature to Socionics - it gauges _quality _of information processing, while MBTI doesn't, so types can't be correlated as easily as through j/p switch.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

..Have you _seen_ mbti?


* *




































It's all stereotyping.
The longer you've known MBTI and tried to learn the cognitive functions, the more you realise it's a mess. For a while I tried to make sense of it and just stick with the definitions I thought were accurate, but I never settled on one type using the cognitive functions stack.
I read so many definitions and posts of someone trying to define the functions, but eventually I realised I still couldn't even define the functions myself, or identify with a type - which in MBTI, feels more like a label. 

When I see users defining the functions, it just looks to me like they're making it up. Or they have got the information from someone who has made it up, because they think their definitions of it are better than everyone else's.

However I think one of the reasons socionics is better and tends to have less bs associated with it is because it's less popular. If as many people were familiar with it as they were with MBTI, it might resemble it more.


----------



## Terry_McMillan (Jan 23, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> It's a matter of you creating superficial archetypes, out of what I'm not even sure, and using them to represent types.


I'll try to explain. 



Ocean Helm said:


> INTP as "robotic and logical machinery vibe" while INTJs, actual judgers, aren't? This isn't even accurate.


They say that "INTP is the warmest robot", while "INTJ is the coldest human", am I right? INTJ has Fi, while INTP has Fe. Fi-users are vulnerable inside and they're very good at holding a grudge, because they're more easily hurt than Fe-users. Fe-users can shrug the pain off and move on much faster, because they don't have Fi in their prime, 4 functions stack.

Fi could cloud one's judgement, that's why INTPs could be unbiased in situations where INTJs couldn't.



Ocean Helm said:


> What the hell is a "cunning, tactical mind" and how do INTJs and ILIs have more of that than INTPs and LIIs?


It is exactly what it is. INTP is the ultimate truth searcher, a scientist, a philosopher. They're more peaceful than INTJs, that's why INTPs often have 9 in their enneagram tritype. I don't see them as a person who will try to take over the world, for example.

INTJs are more often than INTPs have 1 or 8 in their tritype: they're goal-oriented and decisive more than just truth-oriented. If you want to see a definitive real-life example of INTJ - look for Michael Wray from the first season of Hell's Kitchen with Gordon Ramsay - you'll see what I'm talking about.

Of course, between LII and ILI the former is a decisive one, but if we look at the movie characters' typings, Darth Sidious is both INTJ and ILI: always planning, scheming and letting others do his work for him. 



Ocean Helm said:


> From where are you deriving anything in any of these types pertaining to "gentleness"?


Explained already. INTPs, especially of they're mature, could have strong Fe. Not dom or aux, but still strong. Fe - gentleness and politeness.



Ocean Helm said:


> Since when don't INTPs also "deep feelings they don't want others to see"?


They do. But if you compare Fi- and non Fi-users, you'll see what I'm talking about.



Ocean Helm said:


> Is this really what you think passes as typology?


Yup. And you're being rude here.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Terry_McMillan said:


> They say that "INTP is the warmest robot", while "INTJ is the coldest human", am I right?


They, the Socionics/MBTI syncretizing Voice of Truth in the sky?


> INTJ has Fi, while INTP has Fe.


In the official MBTI stack, both “have” Fe and INTJ has it higher. But that’s not how it’s supposed to be interpreted.


> Fi-users are vulnerable inside and they're very good at holding a grudge, because they're more easily hurt than Fe-users. Fe-users can shrug the pain off and move on much faster, because they don't have Fi in their prime, 4 functions stack.
> Fi could cloud one's judgement, that's why INTPs could be unbiased in situations where INTJs couldn't.


Thankfully, this idea of type differences occurring based on whether you “have” or “don’t have” a function 3rd or 4th in your stack is not something I find being used in official MBTI theory.


> It is exactly what it is. INTP is the ultimate truth searcher, a scientist, a philosopher.


Why wouldn’t this apply to INTJs? INTx philosophers are commonly typed as INFJ anyway using function magic, despite clearly preferring the function of Thinking.


> They're more peaceful than INTJs, that's why INTPs often have 9 in their enneagram tritype.


INTPs also have 4 way more often in their Enneagram tritype, could you use similar logic to say INTPs have “more Fi”?

Anyway, I’d guess the INTJ’s preference for Enneagram 1 is the main reason why INTPs have Enneagram 9 so much more often in their tritype. Enneagram 1 is basically like MBTI J, and it fits the I-N-T-J type very well. Tritype is basically just “what do you relate best to, 8, 9, or 1?”.

9 does correlate to Perceiving to some degree, like with how 9s can have the tendency to become lazy and lack self-motivation as long as things are going smoothly, while Judgers will generally want to follow along with their plans and motivations still, suppressing how things make them feel at the moment.

But who is the more Enneagram 9 type anyway, ILI or LII? The answer is clearly ILI to me, with how they stereotypically ignore responsibilities due to being so focused on perceiving inside their heads.


> I don't see them as a person who will try to take over the world, for example.


That sounds more like an extraverted goal anyway but I guess you can say INTJs would be more likely to focus their life energy on such a thing. So would LIIs though, over ILIs.


> INTJs are more often than INTPs have 1 or 8 in their tritype: they're goal-oriented and decisive more than just truth-oriented. If you want to see a definitive real-life example of INTJ - look for Michael Wray from the first season of Hell's Kitchen with Gordon Ramsay - you'll see what I'm talking about.


8 is probably false, mainly because even the more 8-ish INTJs have that 1 option waiting there for them for their gut tritype. But yeah, “goal-oriented”, etc. That is much more in the line with INTJ and the rational LII.


> Of course, between LII and ILI the former is a decisive one, but if we look at the movie characters' typings, Darth Sidious is both INTJ and ILI: always planning, scheming and letting others do his work for him.


Yeah that doesn’t describe ILI at all. And that’s why he is typically typed as LIE or EIE, and INTJ or ENTJ.


> Explained already. INTPs, especially of they're mature, could have strong Fe. Not dom or aux, but still strong. Fe - gentleness and politeness.


According to some dumb theory of yours which hasn’t been demonstrated (using real evidence) in any way. I’d imagine those with higher conscientiousness would at least be more likely to follow “rules of politeness” and that’s J types.


> They do. But if you compare Fi- and non Fi-users, you'll see what I'm talking about.


Once you’ve created this construct and type people by it, sure, but it has little to do with any difference between actual MBTI INTPs and INTJs.


> Yup. And you're being rude here.


Does this mean I’m the coldest human even though I’m clearly P?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Wisteria said:


> ..Have you _seen_ mbti?
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


This just soils the MBTI name. The actual MBTI people don't write this kind of stuff, and are focused around the letters and empirical research. It's like how you can't blame an author for their fanbase.

I agree that the functions have a major problem there though, because they lack standardization, and a lot of people just like to categorize people by the kind of "aura" they give off or whatever. That isn't cognition, obviously.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> This just soils the MBTI name. The actual MBTI people don't write this kind of stuff, and are focused around the letters and empirical research.


And by "empirical research" you mean marketing their product to the HR departments of businesses, right?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Bastard said:


> And by "empirical research" you mean marketing their product to the HR departments of businesses, right?


I mean actual evidence which shows statistical correlations, regardless of who finds that kind of evidence appealing (I do, for one). I'd imagine not many business executives want to stake their business's future on typing people by vibes though.


----------



## lolberty (Feb 2, 2018)

Spine Crusher said:


> I've only ever found one English book on Socionics (and it was expensive). I found a couple of websites that don't seem untrustworthy, but having a website or two as the only information source(s) seems strange and unreliable.


Systems are fun to tinker with imo, its how I got into this. Probably why I like economic and political theory as well as Philosophy.
Best socionics test btw: Sociotypograph â€” determine sociotype
Decent info if you can't read Russian: Wikisocion - Socionics Wiki - ????????? ????



Ocean Helm said:


> I mean actual evidence which shows statistical correlations, regardless of who finds that kind of evidence appealing (I do, for one). I'd imagine not many business executives want to stake their business's future on typing people by vibes though.


Try the BIG5 personality test.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

lolberty said:


> Try the BIG5 personality test.


Big 5 and MBTI results are pretty similar in the information they contain, only the dichotomy coding (with neutral-connotation words) of MBTI is better suited for application in businesses.


----------



## lolberty (Feb 2, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> Big 5 and MBTI results are pretty similar in the information they contain, only the dichotomy coding (with neutral-connotation words) of MBTI is better suited for application in businesses.


Tbh I think applying this in business is a waste of resources, most ppl are not self aware enough to answer sincerely and you'd run the risk of running on faulty info. Why not just go by education, prior work and results with a 3 month test period? Seems a safer bet when it comes to employing someone.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

lolberty said:


> Tbh I think applying this in business is a waste of resources, most ppl are not self aware enough to answer sincerely and you'd run the risk of running on faulty info. Why not just go by education, prior work and results with a 3 month test period? Seems a safer bet when it comes to employing someone.


MBTI isn't typically used for hiring purposes though.

It's more like to help people acknowledge that there is personality diversity in the workplace, and to be more understanding of others, and to improve communication.

So Big 5 would be pretty horrible for that.


----------



## lolberty (Feb 2, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> MBTI isn't typically used for hiring purposes though.
> 
> It's more like to help people acknowledge that there is personality diversity in the workplace, and to be more understanding of others, and to improve communication.
> 
> So Big 5 would be pretty horrible for that.


Fug.. you sound like HR...


----------



## Terry_McMillan (Jan 23, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> They, the Socionics/MBTI syncretizing Voice of Truth in the sky?


I don't know about the Voice of Truth, but it's one of the classic MBTI quotes.



Ocean Helm said:


> In the official MBTI stack, both “have” Fe and INTJ has it higher. But that’s not how it’s supposed to be interpreted.


I'm not taking "shadow functions" in consideration here because it would make everything a lot more complicated to talk about.



Ocean Helm said:


> Thankfully, this idea of type differences occurring based on whether you “have” or “don’t have” a function 3rd or 4th in your stack is not something I find being used in official MBTI theory.


I'm not talking about a 3rd or a 4th position. I'm talking about Fi and Fe in a 4-function stack.



Ocean Helm said:


> Why wouldn’t this apply to INTJs?


Because of a difference between Te and Ti: Te likes efficiency and real life implementation of knowledge, while Ti like analyzing for the sake of knowing the truth. If I find something interesting to think about, I don't care whether this knowledge is useful in real life or not, because I don't have Te in my 4-function stack.



Ocean Helm said:


> INTx philosophers are commonly typed as INFJ anyway using function magic, despite clearly preferring the function of Thinking.


IEI-Ni has strong Ti. IEI - INFJ.



Ocean Helm said:


> INTPs also have 4 way more often in their Enneagram tritype, could you use similar logic to say INTPs have “more Fi”?


My tritype is 649. And I have Fe.



Ocean Helm said:


> Anyway, I’d guess the INTJ’s preference for Enneagram 1 is the main reason why INTPs have Enneagram 9 so much more often in their tritype. Enneagram 1 is basically like MBTI J, and it fits the I-N-T-J type very well.


Yup. We finally agree on something :wink: Before you say: "Where is your 1, J?", I have 1 as a wing to my 9.



Ocean Helm said:


> Tritype is basically just “what do you relate best to, 8, 9, or 1?”.


IIRC, it's Naranjo who said that enneagram number is based on fears. I may be mistaken here, though.



Ocean Helm said:


> 9 does correlate to Perceiving to some degree, like with how 9s can have the tendency to become lazy and lack self-motivation as long as things are going smoothly, while Judgers will generally want to follow along with their plans and motivations still, suppressing how things make them feel at the moment.


I believe it's all Te. I'm a supposed judger and have 9 as a fix. Te processes information and judges it (usefulness, efficiency, etc.), while Ti processes it because it's interesting. That's why INTJ prefers to give orders ("you! fix this, because...") while INTP gives information ("it may use some fixing *wink, wink*")



Ocean Helm said:


> But who is the more Enneagram 9 type anyway, ILI or LII? The answer is clearly ILI to me, with how they stereotypically ignore responsibilities due to being so focused on perceiving inside their heads.


I agree about 9 and ILI. At least when it's ILI-Ni, when ILI-Te would like to clash with you (and that's 8). That's a good point, and that's why I mentioned this resemblance between LII and INTJ.



Ocean Helm said:


> That sounds more like an extraverted goal anyway but I guess you can say INTJs would be more likely to focus their life energy on such a thing. So would LIIs though, over ILIs.


ILI is a schemer, a grey eminence. MBTI says that INTJ has inferior Se, Socionics amplifies that. I agree with your point here though: LII and INTJ have similarities and I haven't denied it. I just see more resemblance between ILI and INTJ.



Ocean Helm said:


> 8 is probably false, mainly because even the more 8-ish INTJs have that 1 option waiting there for them for their gut tritype.


Probably. Probably not.



Ocean Helm said:


> But yeah, “goal-oriented”, etc. That is much more in the line with INTJ and the rational LII.


Yup.



Ocean Helm said:


> Yeah that doesn’t describe ILI at all. And that’s why he is typically typed as LIE or EIE, and INTJ or ENTJ.


Yeah, it does. Most villains who use their brain rather then their brawn are Ni-villains. Ni is an ILI's thing. Try to read the16types.info : Ni is associated with scheming, plotting, planning. The website is about Socionics mostly, btw. And yeah, EIE is ENFJ.



Ocean Helm said:


> According to some dumb theory of yours


I see anger. Good, good. Try to work on your Fe and you won't be so disrespectful



Ocean Helm said:


> which hasn’t been demonstrated (using real evidence) in any way.


If you don't know that the Fe-strong people are more gentle, polite and friendly than people with Fi and Fe-weak people, you have a lot to learn, padawan.



Ocean Helm said:


> I’d imagine those with higher conscientiousness would at least be more likely to follow “rules of politeness” and that’s J types.


INTJ has Fi, INFJ has Fe. INTJ, if isn't interested in what you're saying to them, will tell you that it's not interesting for them to hear. INFJ will not, because Fe. I'm INFJ and I know it. 



Ocean Helm said:


> Once you’ve created this construct and type people by it, sure, but it has little to do with any difference between actual MBTI INTPs and INTJs.


I'm glad you have feelings.



Ocean Helm said:


> Does this mean I’m the coldest human even though I’m clearly P?


It means that you have inferior Fe.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

what...IEI-Ni doesn't have strong Ti

or maybe you meant Ni idk, that would make more sense at least


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Terry_McMillan said:


> I don't know about the Voice of Truth, but it's one of the classic MBTI quotes.


So basically some people spread this bullshit across Tumblr?


> I'm not taking "shadow functions" in consideration here because it would make everything a lot more complicated to talk about.


I'm talking about the latest official MBTI stack:










> I'm not talking about a 3rd or a 4th position. I'm talking about Fi and Fe in a 4-function stack.


Yes, and in the official MBTI stack, Fe is in a higher position for INTJs than it is for INTPs. I hope you can see that while I'm citing official MBTI sources, you are citing Tumblr memes.


> Because of a difference between Te and Ti: Te likes efficiency and real life implementation of knowledge, while Ti like analyzing for the sake of knowing the truth.


This idea of looking at MBTI types as either "having" or "not having" seems to be the basis of a lot of what you do, even though that's not how the functions are supposed to be used at all in MBTI. Anyway, you can use that kind of logic to say all kinds of silly things like that INFPs like "efficiency and real life implementation of knowledge", while ESTPs and ESFJs don't.


> If I find something interesting to think about, I don't care whether this knowledge is useful in real life or not, because I don't have Te in my 4-function stack.


If you're bringing yourself into this discussion, then I guess I have the right to say that I don't know why I should accept you as an example of INFJ.


> IEI-Ni has strong Ti. IEI - INFJ.


Nope.


> My tritype is 649. And I have Fe.


You say you "have Fe".


> Yup. We finally agree on something :wink: Before you say: "Where is your 1, J?", I have 1 as a wing to my 9.


Yeah, so 9 is your best fit, and 1 is a better fit than 8. I'd expect that IxFP types mainly relate to 8 even less than they do to 1, because 8 is such a strongly E and T thing. Them doing so doesn't signify much of anything "J".


> IIRC, it's Naranjo who said that enneagram number is based on fears. I may be mistaken here, though.


Regardless of what an Enneagram number is based on, what you have in your "gut tritype" is based on which number you best identify with out of 8/9/1.

For what it's worth I may best identify with the fear of 8, even though I don't relate to any of the other stuff.


> I believe it's all Te. I'm a supposed judger


You supposed yourself to be a judger. Now it seems like you are just bending MBTI into whatever you want, so that it'll fit you. For example, giving prime importance to "having Te" or "not having Te".


> and have 9 as a fix. Te processes information and judges it (usefulness, efficiency, etc.), while Ti processes it because it's interesting. That's why INTJ prefers to give orders ("you! fix this, because...") while INTP gives information ("it may use some fixing *wink, wink*")


..."because it's interesting" in Socionics is an excuse that should be tied primarily to Intuition dominants of all kinds (Ixx). I don't know why you'd even attempt to tie it to a Judging function like Ti, if you are to treat The Functions similarly in both universes.


> I agree about 9 and ILI. At least when it's ILI-Ni, when ILI-Te would like to clash with you (and that's 8).


I prefer not to use subtypes at all, because they seem to contradict what the types stand for. Like why would an Intuition dominant be a Thinking subtype? Neither ILI nor LII are very 8 at all. Depending on how you view Socionics types and Enneagram types you can make arguments for one type being marginally more 8 than another, but what's the point?


> ILI is a schemer, a grey eminence.


Huh? Why don't you actually read about ILI from actual Socionics sources before saying stuff like this?


> MBTI says that INTJ has inferior Se, Socionics amplifies that.


Huh, amplifies what? All MBTI descriptions I know only mentions Se in INTJs to say that it's weak and problematic, similar to how vulnerable/PoLR Se is most problematic in xIIs.


> Yeah, it does. Most villains who use their brain rather then their brawn are Ni-villains. Ni is an ILI's thing. Try to read the16types.info : Ni is associated with scheming, plotting, planning. The website is about Socionics mostly, btw.


I don't really have time to talk about your favorite edgy Ni villains. These are fictional characters dependent on archetypes anyway. But villains with a singular cause will generally be leading with a Judging function, and villains who do things for their own amusement or less clearly defined causes will generally be leading with a Perceiving function. This is fiction we're talking about though.


> And yeah, EIE is ENFJ.


EIE is a Socionics type, not an MBTI type. It's ENFj.


> If you don't know that the Fe-strong people are more gentle, polite and friendly than people with Fi and Fe-weak people, you have a lot to learn, padawan.


When did "Fe-weak" get added to this comparison?


> INTJ has Fi, INFJ has Fe. INTJ, if isn't interested in what you're saying to them, will tell you that it's not interesting for them to hear. INFJ will not, because Fe. I'm INFJ and I know it.


Seems like you're still stuck on this notion of "having" or "not having" a function. It's all I see you bringing up with MBTI types, and in this case, INTJ doesn't even "have Fi" in the MBTI stack.


> I'm glad you have feelings.


Now please show you have thoughts?


> It means that you have inferior Fe.


...and vulnerable/PoLR Fe as well?

INTP and ILI with the same theoretical weak spot, who would have figured? :wink:


----------



## Terry_McMillan (Jan 23, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> So basically some people spread this bullshit across Tumblr?


I don't use Tumblr. I thought *_T_ types use some kind of logic instead of making assumptions _tsk, tsk_



> I'm talking about the latest official MBTI stack:


A Voice of Truth of yours now says that a person has 3 functions being the opposite direction to the dominant one, right? Yeah, sounds reasonable. It's time to rewrite every MBTI article out there.



> Yes, and in the official MBTI stack, Fe is in a higher position for INTJs than it is for INTPs. I hope you can see that while I'm citing official MBTI sources, you are citing Tumblr memes.


Again: a link, please? And Tumblr again? Ah, come on! Try to be more original.



> This idea of looking at MBTI types as either "having" or "not having" seems to be the basis of a lot of what you do, even though that's not how the functions are supposed to be used at all in MBTI. Anyway, you can use that kind of logic to say all kinds of silly things like that INFPs like "efficiency and real life implementation of knowledge", while ESTPs and ESFJs don't.


Ok, "prefer to use/prefer not to use" instead of "having/not having". Is this good enough now?



> If you're bringing yourself into this discussion, then I guess I have the right to say that I don't know why I should accept you as an example of INFJ.


Your acceptance is a very important thing for me.



> Nope.


a) A Ni-subtype has the reinforced 1st, 4th, 6th and 7th functions. b) Ti is a 6th function. Will your logic bring you the c)?



> You say you "have Fe".


Ok, ok. I prefer using Fe.



> You supposed yourself to be a judger. Now it seems like you are just bending MBTI into whatever you want, so that it'll fit you. For example, giving prime importance to "having Te" or "not having Te".


This again.



> ..."because it's interesting" in Socionics is an excuse that should be tied primarily to Intuition dominants of all kinds (Ixx). I don't know why you'd even attempt to tie it to a Judging function like Ti, if you are to treat The Functions similarly in both universes.


Riddle me this: why ESTP (Se/Ti) is SLE (Se/Ti) and ESFJ (Fe/Si) is ESE (Fe/Si) if the functions in both classifications are different?



> I prefer not to use subtypes at all, because they seem to contradict what the types stand for.


And I prefer thinking that the Earth is flat, but it doesn't make it flat, does it? If something contradicts your opinion, you just prefer to think it doesn't exist. Very logical. Bravo.



> Huh? Why don't you actually read about ILI from actual Socionics sources before saying stuff like this?


Again, if the infomation contradicts your opinion, you "prefer not to use it".



> Huh, amplifies what?


Isn't your Ne supposed to help you understand it? Ah, one moment, you're ILI and you use Ni! Or... You're INTP and you use Ne... No, I forgot, functions are different!.. Wait, than why ENTJ is ENTj and why ENFP is ENFp?.. You're trying to deceive me here, aren't you?



> I don't really have time to talk about your favorite edgy Ni villains. These are fictional characters dependent on archetypes anyway. But villains with a singular cause will generally be leading with a Judging function, and villains who do things for their own amusement or less clearly defined causes will generally be leading with a Perceiving function. This is fiction we're talking about though.


But you still find the time to talk to me. That's so sweet.



> EIE is a Socionics type, not an MBTI type. It's ENFj.


A good catch here. You're learning, padawan.



> When did "Fe-weak" get added to this comparison?


You're ILI with a temporal intuition - you tell me when!



> Seems like you're still stuck on this notion of "having" or "not having" a function. It's all I see you bringing up with MBTI types, and in this case, INTJ doesn't even "have Fi" in the MBTI stack.


I still want my proof link.



> ...and vulnerable/PoLR Fe as well?


I'd say a suggestive one, which is also called dual-seeking. "The subject finds it difficult to be overwhelmed by this element, since it perfectly complements and drives the activity of the leading function", - sociotype.com. It basically says that this function is the opposite to the leading function (Se and Ni, Fi and Te, etc.). It's a basis of duality - complementing of the opposite functions. For LII with their Ti it's Fe. Guess which function is the opposite to the dominant function in MBTI? Inferior one. Who has inferior Fe? That's right - you have. Argue with this.



> INTP and ILI with the same theoretical weak spot, who would have figured? 😉


And here he says that it's me who bent something into whatever I want. An assumption again, based on your knowledge of Socionics where you "prefer not to use" things you don't like. Or you just can't accept being wrong. I guess it's both.


----------



## Terry_McMillan (Jan 23, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> what...IEI-Ni doesn't have strong Ti
> 
> or maybe you meant Ni idk, that would make more sense at least


Ok, "reinforced" or "strenthened", not "strong". "A preference for the base function positively strengthens all of the inert functions (functions 1, 4, 6, and 7) and correspondingly weakens all of the contact functions (functions 2, 3, 5, and 8)", - Socionics Subtypes

6th function of IEI is Ti. In the end we have strengthened Ti in IEI-Ni.


----------



## Terry_McMillan (Jan 23, 2018)

Ah, it's been fun arguing) Almost feels like good ol' times.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Terry_McMillan


> I don't use Tumblr. I thought **T* types use some kind of logic instead of making assumptions *tsk, tsk*
> 
> A Voice of Truth of yours now says that a person has 3 functions being the opposite direction to the dominant one, right? Yeah, sounds reasonable. It's time to rewrite every MBTI article out there.
> 
> Again: a link, please? And Tumblr again? Ah, come on! Try to be more original.


Check this out! (link) Am I vindicated now for calling it a Tumblr meme? As far as I know it comes from the _MBTI fanbase_, not MBTI itself.

I gave you a link, to the official MBTI stack. It's a screenshot from this book (link), which you can buy for yourself.


> Riddle me this: why ESTP (Se/Ti) is SLE (Se/Ti) and ESFJ (Fe/Si) is ESE (Fe/Si) if the functions in both classifications are different?


Why is something that isn't true, true? Go ask yourself. SLEs are often ESTJ in MBTI for example. SEE is literally codenamed "Napoleon" in Socionics, yet he's near-unanimously considered ExTJ in MBTI. But if you want to go equate things that are different, then have at it.


> Isn't your Ne supposed to help you understand it? Ah, one moment, you're ILI and you use Ni! Or... You're INTP and you use Ne... No, I forgot, functions are different!..


How hard can it be for you to comprehend that The Functions have different meanings in different universes? I relate best to INTP in MBTI and ILI in Socionics. I guess I generally get Ni first on cognitive functions tests, but those aren't MBTI and usually have a Socionics/Jung influence.


> Wait, than why ENTJ is ENTj and why ENFP is ENFp?.. You're trying to deceive me here, aren't you?


Again, I never said that, you dolt. This is your theory.


> Ah, it's been fun arguing) Almost feels like good ol' times


Your "Fe" is really off the charts.

If you're going to keep posting low-quality content, consider this whole little debate thing done. Bring up intelligent points and I'll respond to them.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> Why is something that isn't true, true? Go ask yourself. SLEs are often ESTJ in MBTI for example. SEE is literally codenamed "Napoleon" in Socionics, yet he's near-unanimously considered ExTJ in MBTI.


Where'd the underlined part come from?

Many Socionists consider Napoleon to be SLE. Note why "Caesar" is often used as a caricature for SEEs.



Ocean Helm said:


> How hard can it be for you to comprehend that The Functions have different meanings in different universes? I relate best to INTP in MBTI and ILI in Socionics. I guess I generally get Ni first on cognitive functions tests, but those aren't MBTI and usually have a Socionics/Jung influence.


Underlined is what bothers me about non-Socionics use of "functions." They're inconsistent at the best of times and therefore have no "real" meaning. MBTI works the best when it keeps well away from them.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Bastard said:


> Where'd the underlined part come from?


I thought it was just obvious. I read a lot of descriptions of SLE and feel like it's basically describing ESTJ or at least ESTx. Also I can think of people whose best fits seem like SLE and ESTJ in their respective universes.

There's also some test that was used in a study that showed a pretty strong positive correlation between the metric for Se and MBTI J scores. I think that it was more of a Jung types-based test but I'm not sure. Obviously Socionics is highly related to Jung's types though.

I think @Turi brought up this study in an earlier thread, in some context of it being a metric of The Functions, that was actually used in a study.


> Many Socionists consider Napoleon to be SLE. Note why "Caesar" is often used as a caricature for SEEs.


Ah didn't know that but at least it shows how basically canon Se dominants in one universe can be basically canon Te dominants in another universe.


> Underlined is what bothers me about non-Socionics use of "functions." They're inconsistent at the best of times and therefore have no "real" meaning. MBTI works the best when it keeps well away from them.


Agreed. Socionics has the same problem though, just not nearly as severe, with the constant debates between the quasi-authorities.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> I thought it was just obvious. I read a lot of descriptions of SLE and feel like it's basically describing ESTJ or at least ESTx. Also I can think of people whose best fits seem like SLE and ESTJ in their respective universes.


I do not see it. Although Socionics makes mention of Se's volitional qualities, the distinction between Socionics EP temperament and MBTI's Judging are clear. Also worth mentioning that LSEs Se is as developed as that of an SLE. 



Ocean Helm said:


> Ah didn't know that but at least it shows how basically canon Se dominants in one universe can be basically canon Te dominants in another universe.


Keirsey had him as an ENTJ, yet Keirsey is explicitly against the theory of cognitive functions. I've seen nothing "canonical" aside from that.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Bastard said:


> I do not see it. Although Socionics makes mention of Se's volitional qualities, the distinction between Socionics EP temperament and MBTI's Judging are clear.


Gulenko's temperaments are only one piece of the puzzle though, and not loved by everyone. But yeah the P ones would "translate" best to P MBTI types (including IP), albeit very roughly.


> Also worth mentioning that LSEs Se is as developed as that of an SLE.


And likewise SLEs Te is as developed as that of an LSE. I do think ESTP is the *better* translation from SLE, but it's pretty easy (at least for me) to see how a lot of ESTJs (by letters especially) would relate best to SLE. It doesn't help that the way LSE is described is often strangely specific, including a sort of conservatism to the profile which the more action-oriented "go getter" ESTJs may find hard to relate to.


> Keirsey had him as an ENTJ, yet Keirsey is explicitly against the theory of cognitive functions. I've seen nothing "canonical" aside from that.


Keirsey as well as this sort of general fan canon. It sure isn't perfect but you should be able to get the point here (link). 60 people voted, and zero voted for anything P.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> I do think ESTP is the *better* translation from SLE, but it's pretty easy (at least for me) to see how a lot of ESTJs (by letters especially) would relate best to SLE. It doesn't help that the way LSE is described is often strangely specific, including a sort of conservatism to the profile which the more action-oriented "go getter" ESTJs may find hard to relate to.


Ah. Right. Yes, I can see how a lot of ESTJs would relate better to SLE. Was looking at the perspective of SLE to ESTJ. 



Ocean Helm said:


> Kiersey as well as this sort of general fan canon. It sure isn't perfect but you should be able to get the point here (link). 60 people voted, and zero voted for anything P.


Rarely do people make the distinction between Keirsey and MBTI. As I've said before, both have formed into an amorphous mess: your "general fan canon."


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/annons-pot-with-lid__0513324_PE638889_S4.JPG


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

I got into MBTI first. After a year of researching it and reading up any websites that I could find it felt like I've covered most of it. In this same time, one of the frequent posters on this forum was posting Socionics descriptions of types. They caught my attention because they offered a somewhat different take on types from MBTI, and I felt bored with MBTI. This led me to do some searching into socionics. The fact that it was poorly researched and I had to piece it together was exciting in a way, since MBTI didn't offer any challenge at that point. And that was how I learned about it.


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> MBTI isn't typically used for hiring purposes though.
> 
> It's more like to help people acknowledge that there is personality diversity in the workplace, and to be more understanding of others, and to improve communication.
> 
> So Big 5 would be pretty horrible for that.


THIS!


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

There are not a few Russian books, sites, articles. Some are not bad.
English talkers by random sites with random English texts near Socionics.

To Socionics mb related only theories (and methods based in their borders) from texts and practices by Jung and Augustinavichiute. 
If you are a novice and read some text - you do not know what is there, where from its parts were taken. While there are a lot theories about types by other authors. 
Also original texts have parts with different degree to trust. For example. Reinin's traits is better to reject, but dynamic/static trait is what Augustinavichiute used seriously and formally it's Socionis (with other traits it's formally lesser clear). You may do not use all she wrote, just stay in the borders of what she wrote to call it still as Socionics.

On practice you come to a site or forum about "Socionics" and get a mess of info near it. Physiognomics, subtypes, hypotheses from different authors, doubtful interpretations of the basics, etc. That all is too doubtful to be used, but people on those sites take it somehow seriously and equally to normal Socionics theory. Much because they do not understand good what it is and mb even do not care, as more there to get a fun from "typology talking" and do not take seriously the typology.

I prefer to use from Socionics: dichotomies, 8 functions, IR theory. 
Tests based on that are useful. Sometimes may use some traits of functions in model A, alike of role function, suggestive, etc. It's useful to read descriptions of all that and of 16 types by different authors.
I do not use parts where Augustinavichiute seems to controvert to Jung or interpret them as expansions. For example, she claims as weakest function - which at Jung is 3rd. I disagree with her in this, but may suppose that she could mean the most annoying function and such if to take into account that 4th Jung's function is lesser consciouse - it indeed may for the consciousness to look as lesser annoying, what does not mean it's stronger. Where she claims about acceptive/productionve traits she sometimes controverts to Jung directly in her texts - I just reject those parts. Do not use all Reinin's traits. As all of what Jung and Augustinavichiute said about types is hypothetical, it can be wrong - so if you doubt, you may do not use it. Just do not add new, what can't be clearly linked with the basics, so what you are using could be "Socionics" still. Or find an experimental proof to add that new to types theory, so there was objective basis to call it as correct about types and hence to be Socionics.

In English, besides Jung's "Psychological types" (X chapter) and MBTI texts about dichotomies/preferences, the only book I'd recommend is by Filatova "Understanding the People Around You: An Introduction to Socionics". I liked this author by Russian books and those are not bad to study the Socionics. 
You may try to find unofficial google-alike translations of Russian sources. Among them Augustinavichiute's texts mb recommended to know what is there. Other English sources have significant possibility to contain parts which are not Socionics and are too doubtful. The example are Gulenko's books and articles where are a lot of his baseless hypotheses about types.

It's about the theory. With a practical part is worse. As there is nothing to trust to anything, as it's only speculations and much doubtful. It's unpredictable what real accuracy has some test and how many mistakes were done in typing of people. Augustinavichiute made a famouses types list - it's how she used Jung and own theory - and there are many opinions with which you'll disagree. It's doubtful even that Augustinavichiute and Jung typed correctly themselves. Jung claimed to have INTJ/LII, while had ILI. Augustinavichiute claimed to have ENTP/ILE, but seems had ENFJ/EIE. It's anyway secondary how good theories' authors used those theories. There should be applied objective methods to evaluate how correct those opinions are, but we can't still.

What is known objectively, that real typing matches seem to be ~20% even people were typed by IRL interviews. That it's often to meet same people typed to different types by different typers. That not so rarely opinions about types may change after a time, including about own types. It's doubtful that there are people in noticalbe quantity which have real typing matches >50% by today methods. Real matches - is when typers did not know beforehand external opinions about types, when was no conformism or a help.
It seems, that among opinions about own types mistakes are ~50% or higher, even if those people keep the interest to types for long. On forums you'll notice a lot of doubtful opinions about own types, not only about types of other people.

At least, these typing matches are not accidental. So there is a sense in types theory, it's not totally subjective and hence mb used on practice. IR theory of Socionics also gives such good hope, based on the sorting by sympathies of my types examples.


----------

