# Socionics attraction



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

aconite said:


> "We" meaning whom?


A couple of people on this forum as wells others who are not


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

TreeBob said:


> welcome back! Been a long time, what exactly did you need to figure out?


Had to get school work done and have been focusing on my mental health. I was having some issues with controlling my emotions and such but did some therapy and have better control over it now 

yep. life has been good. so I thought I would come back to Pcafe.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> We are working on an article to explain the different typing methods and the rationale behind them. As we've continued to interact with those who don't understand it, we've realized that its a lot more difficult to conceptualize than we'd first assumed.


That doesn't answer my question.



cyamitide said:


> Because some believe it's the same system of 16 types hence socionics information can be cross-referenced with MBTI.


*sighs and facepalms*



TreeBob said:


> Sorry, are you speaking to me or infpharmacist?


I wasn't speaking to anyone specifically, but the complaint wasn't directed at you.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> That doesn't answer my question.


We really have communication issues going on (don't take that as a deviation from your question its just that my thinking is detached and abstract leaning heavily on symbolism), a possible ST/NT clash, as well as opposing judging functions. I can't provide a succinct answer for you since the premises we stem from are different. 

Are you a type 8w7 enneagram instead? You have an abrasive conduct, that seems to conflict with body type, 1w9 (self controlled elitist put succinctly and negatively). Or are you a counterphobic 6w7?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> We really have communication issues going on (don't take that as a deviation from your question its just that my thinking is detached and abstract leaning heavily on symbolism), a possible ST/NT clash, as well as opposing judging functions. I can't provide a succinct answer for you since the premises we stem from are different.


I haven't settled on a type, so I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Just an observation/hypothesis of why we talk past each other?

(Edit: wait, you're not talking about socionic type, are you? )

I disagreed with Cyamitide's views (the functions are the same, so we can use either intertype theory), but his answer at least made sense to me. I honestly don't see how what you said has much to do with what I asked. Unless the "working on an article" statement was the why, and the rest was just telling me it's not going as planned?



> Are you a type 8w7 enneagram instead? You have an abrasive conduct, that seems to conflict with body type, 1w9 (self controlled elitist put succinctly and negatively).


Not E8. I don't understand your second sentence. What does 1w9 have to do with anything?



> Or are you a counterphobic 6w7?


I am E6. I can link you to my enneagram thread if you are interested. (If not, don't worry about it.)


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I haven't settled on a type, so I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Just an observation/hypothesis of why we talk past each other?


The observation that they is a dynamic pattern that can be seen when analyzing people's thought processes is where theory came from where Jung noted that people innately have a "type". Though the metrics are difficult to quantify which is why typing is largely on a meta intuitive realm, though it still has formal definitions. 

With our communication I've been left to conclude that you some kind of a sensor, ST, since you focus more on the details than the abstract, detached big picture. The sensing you have is "Se" due to how it lacks an air of subjectivity that I'm quick to recognize with SJs, plus I can feel the similarities since I value objective sensing. Whereas with judgement the dissonance I feel is your subjectivity of logic/facts, since mine orients around the object, plus since you sound "irrational" in Jungian terms you seem like an ESTP. 


Kanerou said:


> (Edit: wait, you're not talking about socionic type, are you? )
> 
> I disagreed with Cyamitide's views (the functions are the same, so we can use either intertype theory), but his answer at least made sense to me. I honestly don't see how what you said has much to do with what I asked. Unless the "working on an article" statement was the why, and the rest was just telling me it's not going as planned?


We know so many people disagree it didn't start recently but has been going on for months as socionics gained more popularity within the Keirsey temperaments forums on this site. The perspective applied to the functions affects the conclusion drawn. Using Jung's definitions of the functions as the core base, the definitions of the functions as stated by both MBTI and Socionics become metaphors that aren't taken literary, personally I relate to the capabilities assigned to functions in both attitudes Ti Te, Ni Ne... INTx would be my most closest type in both MBTI and Socionics if I where to take the function dichotomies literary. 


Kanerou said:


> Not E8. I don't understand your second sentence. What does 1w9 have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> I am E6. I can link you to my enneagram thread if you are interested. (If not, don't worry about it.)


According to enneagram different types give different vibes to each other, in a way different types can be felt.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> The observation that they is a dynamic pattern that can be seen when analyzing people's thought processes is where theory came from where Jung noted that people innately have a "type". Though the metrics are difficult to quantify which is why typing is largely on a meta intuitive realm, though it still has formal definitions.


A simple "Yes, this is me theorizing as to why we have poor communication" would have sufficed.



> With our communication I've been left to conclude that you some kind of a sensor, ST, since you focus more on the details than the abstract, detached big picture. The sensing you have is "Se" due to how it lacks an air of subjectivity that I'm quick to recognize with SJs, plus I can feel the similarities since I value objective sensing. Whereas with judgement the dissonance I feel is your subjectivity of logic/facts, since mine orients around the object, plus since you sound "irrational" in Jungian terms you seem like an ESTP.


I am _so_ not Se-dom. Seriously. Neither am I Se-aux, in case that was your next guess.

What exactly are you typing from? Is it just our interactions? I don't really see how not understanding what you're talking about (especially not seeing how it relates to what I was talking about) equates to "preferring details over the abstract, big picture". You would need to observe me with many other Intuitives for that observation to hold considerable weight. Also, if you _are_ typing just from our interactions (which would give you very little material with which to work), how on earth can you tell past a "feeling/impression" whether my Sensing is subjective or not? Why necessarily Ti? For that matter, why irrational? If you can show me that you are working with evidence from outside of these two(?) threads in which we have spoken, then while I will still highly disagree with your conclusion, I'll at least know you put more thought into it than I originally suspected. This can be taken to PM if necessary, to avoid derailing the thread.



> We know so many people disagree it didn't start recently but has been going on for months as socionics gained more popularity within the Keirsey temperaments forums on this site. The perspective applied to the functions affects the conclusion drawn. Using Jung's definitions of the functions as the core base, the definitions of the functions as stated by both MBTI and Socionics become metaphors that aren't taken literary, personally I relate to the capabilities assigned to functions in both attitudes Ti Te, Ni Ne... INTx would be my most closest type in both MBTI and Socionics if I where to take the function dichotomies literary.


Well, I understand most of this, which is to say I comprehend it, not agree with it. Are you saying you cannot decide which is stronger or that you are equal in both? Because the latter isn't doable in Socionics.



> According to enneagram different types give different vibes to each other, in a way different types can be felt.


Ah. Are you the 1w9 mentioned, then?


----------

