# MBTI types vs Socionics



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Sollertis said:


> 4) What is Socionics' basis for the physical descriptions?


Nothing whatsoever? ...Right.




Alhazred said:


> Second thing, in socionics the ESTp is the ultimate dual of INFp. MBTI, although intertype relationship is not it’s focus, seems to claim that NF/ST is one of the most challenging relationships. ESTP/INFP compatibility threads seem to confirm what MBTI says. What do you think about this?


If you head over to ESTP forum here, you'll see several threads on the topic... apparently ESTP with INFx either works out very well or absolutely terribly


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

aconite said:


> Wow. Aren't you charming.


The best part of being an Alpha is that nobody negatively stereotypes us. :3


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

PimpinMcBoltage said:


> The best part of being an Alpha is that nobody negatively stereotypes us. :3


*hands him an apron and a cookie pan*


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

PimpinMcBoltage said:


> The best part of being an Alpha is that nobody negatively stereotypes us. :3


Yeah, you lazy, self-indulgent, silly, immature, impractical clowns 

(trademark INFp cruelty, do not copy or redistribute in any form)


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> *hands him an apron and a cookie pan*


The awkward thing is, that I don't really know how to cook. lol. I'm such a shitty Si dom.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

PimpinMcBoltage said:


> The awkward thing is, that I don't really know how to cook.


Sadness. Buy me a cookie and we call it even?



> lol. I'm such a shitty Si dom.


Well, cooking isn't really an Si thing to begin with, or we wouldn't have awesome Si-PoLR chefs. If you were joking, then ignore me.


----------



## Alhazred (Oct 20, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> To summarize: duality is a relationship of supreme psychological comfort, _provided you can get close enough to click_, but it's one component among many that makes for a great interaction with someone, and it's not a guarantee of success. This holds especially true for romantic relationships. You won't like every dual you meet.


I would say, duality is the POV. Like, with which type it will be easier to complete each other IF we are talking only within the socionics framework. In the reality, there are multiple other factors, which are MORE important than duality: like physical and emotional attraction, emotional intelligence, commonalities, level of education, common values etc. When THESE factors concord well between two people, you'll have better relationship with your "non-dual" than with your "dual". If you want to build a good couple, seriously, buy some books of psychologists, sexologists and couple therapists with dozens of years of experience. Understand what do you want from couple, understand your own needs and needs of your partner. It's much more about emotional intelligence, than socionics or whatever.

The socionics duality is MAYBE(or maybe not, as there are many other alternative POV on who is your dual) one of the numberous factors. And it's definitely not the dominating factor.


----------



## Alhazred (Oct 20, 2010)

sinigang said:


> @_Alhazred_
> 
> Most MBTI types don't translate well into their socionics counterparts and vice versa. Mostly due to function difference and difference in function definition in both theories.
> 
> You should read more about quadras and their qualities so you can find out why and how duality works (though I'm not a firm believer in that itself as of yet). This will as well answer your confusion with INFP and INFp though you should probably compare INFJ with INFp and INFP with INFj. Actually maybe you shouldn't and just find out what you are looking for from scratch. No suprise in seeing INFP MBTI being something else entirely in socionics, as switches from S to N are not uncommon.


Yeah, I like your point of view. I would say socionics and MBTI are a bit similar, but that's all. ISTP are a bit similar to ISTp, and ISTJ to ISTj. But the described types are different in two models. And I would more appreciate MBTI who modestly limitates itself within such framework as: few most basic traits of your personality and things you are more naturally inclined to do; than socionics which tries to explain EVERYTHING about you.


----------



## Alhazred (Oct 20, 2010)

aconite said:


> Wow. Aren't you charming.


Dear Aconite, I'm sorry for not being clear, but it's not me who describes INFp this way, it's socionics. Me personaly, I'm not socionics adept. It has some truth in it, but it's way too ambitious for it's tools.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

Alhazred said:


> Dear Aconite, I'm sorry for not being clear, but it's not me who describes INFp this way, it's socionics. Me personaly, I'm not socionics adept. It has some truth in it, but it's way too ambitious for it's tools.


Hahaha I'm not offended 

Socionics, you say... but *whose* socionics? I doubt I've ever come across such a negative INFp description. Oh, maybe there was one, so-called "uncovered" from socionics.com; it might have been at least moderately funny if it wasn't so laughably inaccurate. Leading Ni = religiousness. Yay for stereotypes.


----------



## Alhazred (Oct 20, 2010)

aconite said:


> Hahaha I'm not offended
> 
> Socionics, you say... but *whose* socionics? I doubt I've ever come across such a negative INFp description. Oh, maybe there was one, so-called "uncovered" from socionics.com; it might have been at least moderately funny if it wasn't so laughably inaccurate. Leading Ni = religiousness. Yay for stereotypes.


Ever heard about Stratiyevskaya? One of the socionics big specialists. She has her Russian site socionics.forever something. You can get a very deep detailed description of INFp there. I was shocked.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Alhazred said:


> Ever heard about Stratiyevskaya? One of the socionics big specialists. She has her Russian site socionics.forever something. You can get a very deep detailed description of INFp there. I was shocked.


He/She seems to be in the same league as filatova, I just found the translated materials on 16types.


----------



## Alhazred (Oct 20, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> Did you take a look at their cognitive functions?
> 
> MBTI INFP, the sweet and caring one, is Fi dominant and Ne auxiliary. This corresponds to INFj type in Socionics, not INFp. It is Socionics INFj which is leading in Fi and Ne creative: INFj profile
> 
> ...


Hi.
Firstly, I’ve checked carefully the cognitive functions in MBTI and in Socionics. To show you the discord between MBTI/Socionics I’ll give you two examples. 
Let’s take INFP and INFj: Fi (MBTI)/Relationship Ethics (Socionics) as primary/dominant, Ne(MBTI)/Intuition of Opportunities (Socionics) as auxilliary/creative. Here comes difference: Si (MBTI)/Will Sensorics (socionics), which people associate with Se in the position of Tertiary/Mobilizing function. (There are more commonalities between Si and Interior Sensation Sensorics, than between Si and Will sensorics). Te(MBTI)/Practical Logic as Inferior/Suggestive, here MBTI and Socionics agree. 
So following your logic, INFP and INFj should have quite same description. Yet they are not! Compare best INFP descriptions in various sites and INFj descriptions from top socionists (like, Gulenko, Stratiyevskaya etc). They are caring, kind, moralistic but INFj is much more J-yish and INFP is much more tolerant and flexible P-yish. And it’s not a surprise, since J/P are quite the same as Rationality/Irrationality.

Compare INFP with INFp, and they are still different. Even more different than INFP/INFj.

But apparently that the same logic doesn’t apply to ISTP/ISTj. They have roughly same cognitive functions hierarchy: Ti/Logic of Structure, Se/Will sensorics. Here comes the difference Ni(MBTI)/Intuition of Opportunities (same as ENFp leading function,).Fe/Emotional Ethics as inferior/suggestive. And despite this, you have two different guys. Like one very P, another very J.
Then, compare ISTP and ISTp, functions are different and not at the same positions, but these guys are quite same. Some differences, but most things are quite common.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Alhazred said:


> So following your logic, INFP and INFj should have quite same description. Yet they are not! Compare best INFP descriptions in various sites and INFj descriptions from top socionists (like, Gulenko, Stratiyevskaya etc). They are caring, kind, moralistic but INFj is much more J-yish and INFP is much more tolerant and flexible P-yish. And it’s not a surprise, since J/P are quite the same as Rationality/Irrationality.


Did you see my reply concerning MBTI and Socionics basing type profiles on different dichotomies?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PimpinMcBoltage said:


> The best part of being an Alpha is that nobody negatively stereotypes us. :3


Isn't it more that you just take it all as a big joke and move on?


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

SLI is similar to ISTP in terms of introvertness, apathy, changeability, mechanical interests, rebellion, stir craziness, etc. ISTP becomes less recognizable when it begins to focus on Se-ish aspects: daredevilry and a constant need for sensation. Which doesn't mean those aspects are not present in the SLI. I enjoy speed and physical activity, long hard manual labor, physical adventure, etc, also. I tell people I enjoy bad weather because it feels nice on my skin. 

There are descriptions that make the ISTP sound like an Se-dom, and also threads where people say they don't identify with that. Yes there are probably some SLEs in the ISTP forum. There are also a few recognizable SLIs, and perhaps also some LSIs though I can't really tell. Anyways please inform me where LSI and ISTP intersect because I cannot see it.

Is the LSI an apathetic, daredevil rebel?

@_itsme45_, Tell us if you see yourself in ISTP descriptions?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

esq said:


> SLI is similar to ISTP in terms of introvertness, apathy, changeability, mechanical interests, rebellion, stir craziness, etc. ISTP becomes less recognizable when it begins to focus on Se-ish aspects: daredevilry and a constant need for sensation. Which doesn't mean those aspects are not present in the SLI. I enjoy speed and physical activity, long hard manual labor, physical adventure, etc, also. I tell people I enjoy bad weather because it feels nice on my skin.



SLI isn't associated with rebellion. Stereotypically, this has been the prerogative of Beta quadra. SLIs are survivalists in Socionics - they retreat from society, seek simple living away from the commontion, know how to work with hands and can convert any habitat into something comfortable for living (I'm just listing the stereotypes of this type). Si is function of comfort in Socionics and being Si-dominant SLI is not the daredevil, rebel type. SLI isn't like the MBTI ISTP in this sense.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

esq said:


> SLI is similar to ISTP in terms of introvertness, apathy, changeability, mechanical interests, rebellion, stir craziness, etc. ISTP becomes less recognizable when it begins to focus on Se-ish aspects: daredevilry and a constant need for sensation. Which doesn't mean those aspects are not present in the SLI. I enjoy speed and physical activity, long hard manual labor, physical adventure, etc, also. I tell people I enjoy bad weather because it feels nice on my skin.
> 
> There are descriptions that make the ISTP sound like an Se-dom, and also threads where people say they don't identify with that. Yes there are probably some SLEs in the ISTP forum. There are also a few recognizable SLIs, and perhaps also some LSIs though I can't really tell. Anyways please inform me where LSI and ISTP intersect because I cannot see it.
> 
> Is the LSI an apathetic, daredevil rebel?


LSIs are betas, and as such while they don't precisely fit the archetype, they can be quite close to it in many ways. IEIs might be the best single fit with the apathetic daredevil archetype, and LSIs are the closest on the socion to that.

I think that quite often people who strongly identify with the brunt of the aspects of the ISTP description, and in particular their aggressiveness and indifference, are probably most often SLE, also sometimes LSI or ESI or IEI. I see this a lot on 16t where in my opinion tons of self-proclaimed SLIs are mistyped -- one word to describe these individuals is generally "rugged" -- they identify with the ruggedness of ISTPs, which is far more appropriate to SLEs and LSIs than it is SLI.

one of the individuals to whom this applied was the 16t user named "ISTP" -- who later decided she was ESTP and changed her name accordingly, and later decided she was EIE (though i think she was more likely SLE).

but yes, i totally disagree with the inferences you have drawn about how the ISTP character translates.


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

Please tell me what rebellion is if it is not rejecting society. You say "retreat", but it's basically saying "Fuck, that sounds stupid. I'm not going to do that." And I did not mean to direct your attention to daredevilness. I am not saying the SLI is a daredevil, only that he is not opposed to physical activity, he is not opposed to physical adventure. The SLI does not actually lay on his couch all day, no matter how nice that seems to him, because part of Si is that his body tells him he needs to move around to be happy. And it tells him he is not too bad at recognizing physical sensations and that this is useful in sports, etc. 

@aestrivex, Please tell me about your SLI father. Is he not a rebel? You know him better than I do. 

I'm not sure what you mean when you compare ISTP and IEI. Can you elaborate on this? I see the IEI as sort of like a fruity poet who dramatizes things. I suppose I can see some similarity to the extent of the IP temperament's apathy and dislike of mass opinions. What else are you seeing? Can you show me an example of such an IEI? 

I'll mention that there are possibly also some LSE and LIE ISTPs. The busy ones who have a thousand activities and don't really listen to other people's opinions.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

esq said:


> The SLI does not actually lay on his couch all day, no matter how nice that seems to him, because part of Si is that his body tells him he needs to move around to be happy.


I rather doubt that Si-base makes all SLIs active. It's probably more of an individual thing.


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

@_Kanerou_, I agree. In younger years, I was more or less physically incompetent for a lack of trying. Though after trying some different activities (swimming, hiking, wrestling, etc, etc), I learned that I enjoyed physicality and even had a knack for it. I had a bit of a nerdly, bookish upbringing which is more balanced now that I embrace the Sensor side of things. 

I might as well mention that I naively type people usually on the four dichotomies: I/E, S/N, T/F, P/J. This made sense to me from the beginning. Not to say that I don't also consult Model A's function structures, but I focus on these four first. So in my mind, the ISTP and the ISTp are both P and I orient myself on that similarity.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

esq said:


> Please tell me what rebellion is if it is not rejecting society. You say "retreat", but it's basically saying "Fuck, that sounds stupid. I'm not going to do that." And I did not mean to direct your attention to daredevilness. I am not saying the SLI is a daredevil, only that he is not opposed to physical activity, he is not opposed to physical adventure. The SLI does not actually lay on his couch all day, no matter how nice that seems to him, because part of Si is that his body tells him he needs to move around to be happy. And it tells him he is not too bad at recognizing physical sensations and that this is useful in sports, etc.


sure, but the nature of attending to Si means that there is a balance between these polarities. that is to say, physical adventure is not antithetical to the nature of attending to Si, but nor is it something that in any way i expect from Si types. what i expect is, an attention to physical and worldly concerns, whether not this attention is adventurous or not, or "comfy-couch" or not. it is true, "comfy-couch" attention is a bit more like alpha Si.



> @aestrivex, Please tell me about your SLI father. Is he not a rebel? You know him better than I do.




i would not describe him as a rebel (and i suspect he would agree). i would describe him as a nonconformist (and i suspect he would agree). i would describe him as highly self-sufficient, extremely pragmatic, extremely directed towards physical resource and physical environment, highly idiosyncratic, and in some ways habitually off-the-grid.

the way you are describing rebelliousness, as this type of idiosyncratic off-the-grid society-rejection, is not only not exclusive to deltas (though it is characteristic of SLIs and IEEs) -- types such as ILIs and IEIs are all idiosyncratic society-rejecters, but not so much because they value self-sufficiency with respect to their physical resources, but because they find culture too worldly. ILIs are idiosyncratic because they often largely ignore/are apathetic to culture, and IEIs because they often find culture too superficial.



> I'm not sure what you mean when you compare ISTP and IEI. Can you elaborate on this? I see the IEI as sort of like a fruity poet who dramatizes things. I suppose I can see some similarity to the extent of the IP temperament's apathy and dislike of mass opinions. What else are you seeing? Can you show me an example of such an IEI?


in no particular order, individuals from the socionics/perc community that strike me as countercultural, "rebellious" IEIs in the way that you have described "rebelliousness" include @Promethea, hitta from 16t, cpig from 16t, bulletsanddoves from 16t, etc.




> I'll mention that there are possibly also some LSE and LIE ISTPs. The busy ones who have a thousand activities and don't really listen to other people's opinions.


it may be so -- i have no objection to a fairly discrete separation between the systems. but i am moderately interested in the overlap between the archetypes, and for that question perhaps there are not right answers, but there are clearly some wrong answers. ISTP=SLI is one of them (it is one of the two comparisons i make for MBTI types that are very starkly different from their socionics counterparts, the other one being ISFJ=ESI)


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

esq said:


> I might as well mention that I naively type people usually on the four dichotomies: I/E, S/N, T/F, P/J. This made sense to me from the beginning. Not to say that I don't also consult Model A's function structures, but I focus on these four first. So in my mind, the ISTP and the ISTp are both P and I orient myself on that similarity.


I dislike using the dichotomies for either system, honestly; I see I/E and J/P or Rational/Irrational as determined by the base function (or the first two functions in JCF). Also, keep in mind that Rational/Irrational and Judging/Perceiving are determined in different ways between the systems; ISTP is P because of Se-aux, and SLI is Irrational because of Si-base.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

aestrivex said:


> it may be so -- i have no objection to a fairly discrete separation between the systems. but i am moderately interested in the overlap between the archetypes, and for that question perhaps there are not right answers, but there are clearly some wrong answers. ISTP=SLI is one of them (it is one of the two comparisons i make for MBTI types that are very starkly different from their socionics counterparts, *the other one being ISFJ=ESI)*


Yeah. Part of my problem with ISFJ was the "here, let me nurture you physically and sacrifice for your needs and happiness" overall message that seems to be put forth a lot in profiles. While I'm beginning to understand how that arises from the interaction between Si and Fe within the type, still... gah. No. I do care about people's health, but more in a less proactive manner; I'm going to tell the person to take better care of themselves or to watch their condition, or to offer something that may help, rather than actively catering to their needs.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> Yeah. Part of my problem with ISFJ was the "here, let me nurture you physically and sacrifice for your needs and happiness" overall message that seems to be put forth a lot in profiles. While I'm beginning to understand how that arises from the interaction between Si and Fe within the type, still... gah. No. I do care about people's health, but more in a less proactive manner; I'm going to tell the person to take better care of themselves or to watch their condition, or to offer something that may help, rather than actively catering to their needs.


Of course one doesn't have to identify with most, if not all of the profiles out there. Personally I am not like a stereotypical ISFJ at all. I am actually fairly self-absorbed, fantasy prone, and selfish compared to many other ISFJs, who seem to have difficulty NOT helping other people (which I like to do, but I know my fucking boundaries, and won't go out of my way for them). I am kind of a doormat, but that is largely because I am fearful of repercussions, and because of the fact that I am physically feeble. (Have you ever seen an overweight IEI? lol)

My persona is more like that of an IxFP. Generally being unassuming, laid back, and off in la-la land. However I am not really as moralistic/individualistic as they tend to be, and I am generally more paranoid, than authoritarian (though I do go off on massive rants about a person's flaws if they piss me off too much) whenever trouble comes up. Practically nobody would say that I am an ISFJ in real life, nor would anyone who I talk to online for that matter. I just know that I am a Jungian Introverted Sensation type, and that I have crappy intuition.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

PimpinMcBoltage said:


> Of course one doesn't have to identify with most, if not all of the profiles out there. Personally I am not like a stereotypical ISFJ at all. I am actually fairly self-absorbed, fantasy prone, and selfish compared to many other ISFJs, who seem to have difficulty NOT helping other people (which I like to do, but I know my fucking boundaries, and won't go out of my way for them). I am kind of a doormat, but that is largely because I am fearful of repercussions, and because of the fact that I am physically feeble. (Have you ever seen an overweight IEI? lol)


Sounds like we have similar personas. Well, except for the moralistic thing. I can get pretty uptight about people's behavior and how the world should work. Socionics Fe vs Fi, maybe?



> My persona is more like that of an IxFP. Generally being unassuming, laid back, and off in la-la land. However I am not really as moralistic/individualistic as they tend to be, and I am generally more paranoid, than authoritarian (though I do go off on massive rants about a person's flaws if they piss me off too much) whenever trouble comes up. Practically nobody would say that I am an ISFJ in real life, nor would anyone who I talk to online for that matter. *I just know that I am a Jungian Introverted Sensation type, and that I have crappy intuition.*


That's pretty much where I'm at. I always tested xxFP (varying on E/I and S/N, but more toward I and N), but I've come to realize that Fi kinda pisses me off in some ways and that Ne and Se don't fit either. I initially rejected Si-dom, but I have a relatively glaring Ne-inferior going (which probably also plays into being E6).


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

The reason I mention rebellion or as you say nonconformity is because it so opposes my idea of LSI and ISTJ that I cannot relate either of these two to SLI and ISTP. As far as I know, the LSI and ISTJ both favor group cohesion and I expect them to be openly friendly and joyous and to meet social expectations. So to whoever believes such things and will answer me, please tell me why the ISTJ is the SLI. 

This is an ISTP description: Portrait of an ISTP
My opposition to these descriptions is that I find it completely obvious when the author forces Se and Ti stereotypes onto the archetype so that these aspects seem theoretical, over-rationalized, contrived, that they were were not derived from observation but the author adds them because Myers and Briggs said this type is supposed to have these functions. These are exactly the aspects that ISTPs complain they don't relate to. I will agree that your true daredevil, gungho ISTP is most likely a mistyped or confused extravert. And your introverted ISTP will wonder why he is not a daredevil athlete. For the rest, I do not see that it majorly disagrees with the SLI archetype. As regards Kiersey's SPs, the SLE, the SEE, and the SLI are each attracted to motorcycles for their own reasons. I could not speak for the SEI who is sort of girly and flowery. 

In ways, I find that I could rationalize my adventuresome spirit as Ne valuing. I am inclined to seek varied experiences and perspectives. I wish to taste all the activities in the world so that I can say I am prepared to handle any situation that meets me. That is not to say that I am constantly moving. I find myself stuck, inert more often than not, and I find myself aching for release. I will assume that all IPs feel similarly. 

You will hear this forum's ISTP describe Ti and he will say it's about making his own rules about how things work, even though it be inconsistent with people's expectations and precedents. He will tell you, as long as it works for me, I don't care what people's rules and procedures are because I will get the job done. From my perspective this is not Ti in socionics, but rather Te. 

For the record, I don't care how the P in MBTI designates certain functions because I feel it's a crock of artificial bullshit that creates observable problems in people who try too hard to trust it. P describes this: things change, there will be new information, I shall find the new information, because I do not know the truth, and I am not always correct, etc.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

esq said:


> The reason I mention rebellion or as you say nonconformity is because it so opposes my idea of LSI and ISTJ that I cannot relate either of these two to SLI and ISTP. As far as I know, the LSI and ISTJ both favor group cohesion and I expect them to be openly friendly and joyous and to meet social expectations.




really, it depends more than this (as far as LSIs are concerned). i'd generally more easily see SLIs as nonconformists and LSIs as "rebels" -- that is, struck with the cause to overthrow a corrupt ruler and so forth. and that is a collective cause, indeed -- nonconformism is generally not a group cause (although the IEIs i referred to embody the idea of nonconformism as their group cause in some ways).



> My opposition to these descriptions is that I find it completely obvious when the author forces Se and Ti stereotypes onto the archetype so that these aspects seem theoretical, over-rationalized, contrived, that they were were not derived from observation but the author adds them because because Myers and Briggs said this type is supposed to have these functions.




now _that_, is another matter entirely. understanding what the structure of MBTI's types are, is a rather complicated topic that I have no real answer for and neither, collectively, does this forum.

The same could be said about socionics, of course -- except for my purposes socionics means quadra values and little more.




> You will hear this forum's ISTP describe Ti and he will say it's about making his own rules about how things work, even though it be inconsistent with people's expectations and precedents. He will tell you, as long as it works for me, I don't care what people's rules and procedures are because I will get the job done. From my perspective this is not Ti in socionics, but rather Te.




I'm unsure of what archetype of ISTP to work with, but listening to @Promethea speak you would figure ISTPs are quite different and more "rugged" than the way you put it. But, maybe your way is better, I don't really know or care.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

esq said:


> You will hear this forum's ISTP describe Ti and he will say it's about making his own rules about how things work, even though it be inconsistent with people's expectations and precedents. He will tell you, as long as it works for me, I don't care what people's rules and procedures are because I will get the job done. From my perspective this is not Ti in socionics, but rather Te.


Unrelated, but would you mind expanding on this and why you think it is more Te than Ti? Socionics Ti is perhaps one of the functions I seem to understand the least, more than superficially, but then not really.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

aestrivex said:


> in no particular order, individuals from the socionics/perc community that strike me as countercultural, "rebellious" IEIs in the way that you have described "rebelliousness" include @Promethea, hitta from 16t, cpig from 16t, bulletsanddoves from 16t, etc.


Aestrivex mentioned me.. :3
I would totally do him.

But yeah all those things and stuff about socionics.


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

@LeaT, I ought not to be the one to define your Ti. I doubt my capability and I doubt you will be wiser for hearing my words. You may be doomed never to understand and I may have a similar relationship with Ni. Perhaps you will decide that you ought to create a thread and ask more qualified persons for their opinions. All I can give are associations and my derogatory impressions collected of the Ti-doms, LSI and LII. 

To me, Ti is static. Ti will tell you how it is and things will never change except to fit further into his model. He is divine law, universal, infallible and eternal, rule of thumb, categorization, definition, algorithm and formula. He is Aristotle, he is that formal logic course you didn't like. He is the god-truth from which other truths are born. He is impossible to argue with and he is never wrong. He is in fact omniscient. He is so careful and meticulous that his words define reality. The world flows from his mouth and he will lead you to success if only you obey him. 

We contrast to Te which does not hope to have a universal solution. He believes every situation is different and that it's useless to be strict or consistent. 

You should probably ask somebody else. Someone had put it simply that Ti is rationalism and Te is empiricism, and I don't know if that makes any sense to you. Really I would not claim that I know what Ti is any better than you do. I only recognize that people sometimes piss me off and I call that either Ti or Fe.


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

@_esq_

Well we have two main flavors of Ti. We have the LII kind and the LSI kind. While I see my Ti as a 'truth machine', I always leave my options open as I usually see multiple ways to the truth, even the most outrageous ones. Besides, the main job of Ti is more of breaking things down than being strict itself. So I don't at all think LII, such as myself, have the kind of strict Ti you have described, though they fit perfectly into LSI's.

This may have something to do with all the other functions as well, particularly Ne vs Ni. As such, I think Te can be very strict too, such as that of ILI's and LIE's. Fi can be very strict and picky too.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

esq said:


> To me, Ti is static. Ti will tell you how it is and things will never change except to fit further into his model. He is divine law, universal, infallible and eternal, rule of thumb, categorization, definition, algorithm and formula. He is Aristotle, he is that formal logic course you didn't like. He is the god-truth from which other truths are born. He is impossible to argue with and he is never wrong. He is in fact omniscient. He is so careful and meticulous that his words define reality. The world flows from his mind and he will lead you to success if only you obey him.
> 
> We contrast to Te which does not hope to have a universal solution. He believes every situation is different and that it's useless to be strict or consistent.


Every information element in the leading position assumes this kind of role that you describe of Ti. It's not the nature of the element, but it's positioning in Model A that determined it's function. Any element in the dominant position is considered to be 4-dimensional (dimensionality of functions was mentioned here) and thus has a universal outlook. Te in ExTj types assumes the same kind of "master role" as you have described of dominant Ti.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Alhazred said:


> Ever heard about Stratiyevskaya? One of the socionics big specialists. She has her Russian site socionics.forever something. You can get a very deep detailed description of INFp there. I was shocked.


Stratiyevskaya is known in Russian community for promoting her own quadra (Gamma) while condemning other quadras, so I wouldn't believe everything she writes - she is very biased in her descriptions.

I've read translations of some of her stories and I would say she takes the most negative of her experiences and then treats them as a rule for the entire type. Which is not surprising considering that her own type is ESI (ethical, negativist, weak intuition). She always has bucket loads of dirt to spill on other types, and non-gammas suffer the most at her hands. I haven't read her depictions of INFps yet, but considering that INFps are her beneficiaries she probably said some horrible things about them.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

esq said:


> Please tell me what rebellion is if it is not rejecting society. You say "retreat", but it's basically saying "Fuck, that sounds stupid. I'm not going to do that." And I did not mean to direct your attention to daredevilness. I am not saying the SLI is a daredevil, only that he is not opposed to physical activity, he is not opposed to physical adventure. The SLI does not actually lay on his couch all day, no matter how nice that seems to him, because part of Si is that his body tells him he needs to move around to be happy. And it tells him he is not too bad at recognizing physical sensations and that this is useful in sports, etc.



Rebellion has a connotation of active resistance and confrontation. Retreating and living your life by your own isn't rebellion - it's nonconformism.

LSIs are more likely to act rebelliously in the usual definition of this word. This is likely due to their Ni-HA and Ne-PoLR. They have this inner vision that is rather impersonal and easily turns to doom-and-gloom (if you need a reference, George Orwell is typed as LSI, just recall his 1984) and at the same time LSIs are not good at visualizing alternative ways out of the situation (Ne-PoLR). When pressed into corner, they don't retreat but advance forward and go "hacking-and-slashing" with their Se-creative.


----------



## Alhazred (Oct 20, 2010)

Sorry to intervene. I think you are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Socionics and MBTI.
SLI (ISTp) is a mixture of ISTJ’s wish for comfort, good and reliable things, good food, efficiency at work, finding right leverage to solve several problems at the same time etc, and ISTP flexibility and openness, non-planner attitude. It’s not that SLI will lie on the coach, it’s just that he hates to waste energy and efforts. But when he needs something to be done, he finds the right solution. This guy is ABSOLUTELY NOT A PLANNER. Often you ask him: “So what’s the plan? We go there and do this, then we go there, and then?..” Answer: “We will see”. He is not rebel. He just lives his life, that’s it. He likes comfort, have a good good rest, enjoy life, have very pleasant time, like go to Spa on Friday evening, for example.

LSI is my father. He is huge planner, and there is like, army-like order in his belongings/money/bills/clothes whatever. Often says: “Big task should be cut on multiple sub-tasks and done rationally”. He is a moderate control maniac, like everything must be under control. The word “DUTY” is like God’s order. His favorite phrase: “If you have promised something, do it, even if you’ll piss blood”. Don’t like when things change or step out of the plan. So ISTJ’s, J-ness."REBEL"?!! What are you talking about?! He's very pro-society, pro-structure. Integration into the structure and reinforcing it! Respect to the authority within this structure, respect to parents thing.



At the same time he has this distinct Will (black) Sensorics attitude: he was a local boxing champ in his youth, he is 62 but still big daredevil (when there is a celebration, birthday, whatever and he gets a bit drunk, he becomes typical crazy Russian), when he was young he liked all these adrenaline activities, like alpinism, boxing tourneys etc. And all the time he was explaining to me (when I was a boy) these things like if it’s obvious: “You just ask yourself, who are you, a MAN or a coward! Can you? Or you can’t?” He is more or less wealthy man, but he doesn’t enjoy it! To live in peace and comfort it’s not for that he wanted to earn money. It’s more like to show himself: “See, I’m a man, I can make money in the difficult time and have a beautiful house and all these attributes”. Very very very BETA quadra. It’s like they were writing Beta quadra values from discussing with my father and few other guys like him. So kind of ISTP’s Se attitude. So we come that LSI is a mix of ISTJ orderly tendency, controlling, planning J-ness, and ISTP’s Se attitude, “real-man-thing”. 

And I admire this Beta quadra attitude from far… I was heavily influenced by it. But when I live in this atmosphere, I become deeply unhappy person. I try not to show it, and especially not to tell it, because I don’t want this person to feel pain for our incompatibility, for the fact that her cherished way of life and attitude to things make me feel: stressed all the time, hurt, a soul which doesn’t know what peace and harmony are, make me disrespect myself, transform me into a sick kinda masochistic person. And this Beta person doesn’t even notice that you are suffering. Moreover, goes harder on you. Telling you that you are whiny, to stop whining. Only when you get really nervous, and start to violently rebel, they start to respect you.

But when I left my parents home (I was 17) to live my own life, I felt a huge huge relief. I was still going hard on myself. Till maybe 27-28 I was still Beta-quadra wannabe. But little by little I gained some self-confidence and start to know what I want and what I don’t want.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Every type is a planner and a non-planner at the same time. They all have rational and irrational functions.

ISTp is non-planner (irrational) with Si and planner (rational) with Te.
ISTj is planner with (rational) Ti and non-planner (irrational) with Se.

Don't you guys see that you are describing the very same types from opposing ends? It's like that parable about blind men and an elephant where a group of blind men are led to touch an elephant to see what it's like, and each, touching a separate part, describes something different. MBTI and Socionics are like two blind men touching on the same elephant, only one describes its tusks while the other the tail.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

esq said:


> @LeaT, I ought not to be the one to define your Ti. I doubt my capability and I doubt you will be wiser for hearing my words. You may be doomed never to understand and I may have a similar relationship with Ni. Perhaps you will decide that you ought to create a thread and ask more qualified persons for their opinions. All I can give are associations and my derogatory impressions collected of the Ti-doms, LSI and LII.
> 
> To me, Ti is static. Ti will tell you how it is and things will never change except to fit further into his model. He is divine law, universal, infallible and eternal, rule of thumb, categorization, definition, algorithm and formula. He is Aristotle, he is that formal logic course you didn't like. He is the god-truth from which other truths are born. He is impossible to argue with and he is never wrong. He is in fact omniscient. He is so careful and meticulous that his words define reality. The world flows from his mind and he will lead you to success if only you obey him.
> 
> ...


I see. Well Ti as leading function is the one that waffles me the most anyway. I've spoken lots of bearotter who is most definitely an LII-Ti subtype and I try to understand how he thinks but I can't, and when he bcomes the most theoretical I can't even begin to follow his thinking. It's too abstract. 

Despite identifying with Ti in MBTI I can't relate well to Ti descriptions in socionics. I wish there was something more concrete about it, like MBTI makes it rather simple: It's about logical consistency or even simpler, it's about what makes sense to me. But in socionics, it becomes more about output as well like mathematical models and so on and I chuckled when you mentioned the formal logic course I hated. In retrospect yes, I think my teacher in formal logic was an LII and I remember that towards the end of the course when all of us had taken the exam (btw, I failed the first time), he smiled a little awkwardly in class and said, "I don't understand why so many don't like logic when it's so fun". Maybe if my mind was better wired to understand and make sense of the symbols you toss at me.

See, I liked everything else that I studied up to that point but especially non-analytical philosophy e.g. the kind of metaphysics that deal with the perception of self (analytical philosophy as a PITA too but I got through that somehow), and to be honest, it's unfortunate I will probably never study philosophy at university again because I know that I would have to take a lot of logic classes and I would fail. 

And if LII logic waffles me, then LSI waffles me even more actually. I can kind of rationalize LSI logic that I can understand kind of how Se operates and how that would produce something with Ti, but yet I can't... understand -.- I wonder if that's a common feeling when trying to understand one's superego block also? 

I can also understand what cyamitide means about Te kind of having a universal outlook too, something like "standard procedures". It can irk me, especially if I find that I can come up with a more effective solution to the problem. But yeah, maybe it would be better to discuss the T functions in leading role in a new thread.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

LeaT said:


> I can also understand what cyamitide means about Te kind of having a universal outlook too, something like "standard procedures". It can irk me, especially if I find that I can come up with a more effective solution to the problem. But yeah, maybe it would be better to discuss the T functions in leading role in a new thread.


My point was that it's not the identity of information element that matters (Te or Ti), but it's positioning in type's functional ordering. Te as program (dominant) function is 4-dimensional and so has a more universal outlook ("what always works") than Te-creative, which is very flexible in comparison and only looks for "what works per some situation" rather than universally. Same goes for other functions (Ni, Si, etc.)


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

I came here to say that I think Myers-Briggs types are hopelessly frankensteined and they don't describe actual people. @_Alhazred_ has offered the example of his LSI father. I have already sort of spoken for myself. I am left wanting for someone to prove me wrong, with a case study.

Actually, I can really only speak about the ISTJ and ISTP. I don't know anything about the intuitive introverts.

@_cyamitide_, I need you to stop telling people that such and such type is their dual or supervisor because of Socionics. Or that whichever type translates if you flip the J/P. I'll bring up the four dichotomies again: I/E, S/N, T/F, P/J. I will claim that the majority of people type themselves via these four. The introductory tests all focus on these and MBTI newbies are acquainted with these before they ever hear a word about cognitive functions. So I don't care about how J describes an extraverted judging function. MBTI's function model is at least a little bit fucked up until you show me it isn't. From my perspective, the same four dichotomies can be used to type a person into Socionics, because as I see it, they describe the same phenomena in both systems. All your annoying posts make the assumption that people ignore what J/P is supposed to mean, and that they only care about the cognitive functions.


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

@esq

Oh you've actually described LSI Ti perfectly. It's dragging in LII to that description of being strict that I think is wrong. Lol.

As for MBTI types being 'frankenstein', well I can't really agree or disagree. There's just so much possibilities, so many factors on how those types can be in real life that they can't be ever be 100% accurate. This should apply to even socionics descriptions as well. In the end, it will still be all about having your own mental constructs of each type and basically getting the 'gist' regardless of which theory you follow.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

sinigang said:


> @_esq_
> 
> Oh you've actually described LSI Ti perfectly. It's dragging in LII to that description of being strict that I think is wrong. Lol.


LII are actually strict and conservative on abstract logic terms being hostile to new facts, "Te" facts. The hostility to "facts" in not to be confused with the openness to "Ne" since the two are not the same. LIIs don't want to be told that they have to abandon their logical frameworks when the new slightest bit of Te data arises, with Ti and Te being inert(function 1,4,6,7), they'll only change their perspective when resistance is futile (inert functions are "stubborn" whilst contact 2,3,5,8 are more "open minded"). The descriptions have an intuitive bias otherwise the Ti flaws are identical, its only that ISTjs are more explicitly noticeable with Se, being more "grounded". The thread below has the discussion.

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/131138-ignoring-function-ixtjs.html


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> LII are actually strict and conservative on abstract logic terms being hostile to new facts, "Te" facts. The hostility to "facts" in not to be confused with the openness to "Ne" since the two are not the same. LIIs don't want to be told that they have to abandon their logical frameworks when the new slightest bit of Te data arises, with Ti and Te being inert(function 1,4,6,7), they'll only change their perspective when resistance is futile (inert functions are "stubborn" whilst contact 2,3,5,8 are more "open minded"). The descriptions have an intuitive bias otherwise the Ti flaws are identical, its only that ISTjs are more explicitly noticeable with Se, being more "grounded". The thread below has the discussion.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/131138-ignoring-function-ixtjs.html


Using the word hostile may be too much to describe ignoring function. I think simply means what the word meant itself, the function is ignored. PoLR on the other hand fits the connotation of hostile. As LII, I simply take information/facts for granted, as ignored Te implies. It might be strong (id block) but at the same time it is not really that valued.

Since you mentioned it, inert logic, I believe, is Reinin emotivist vs constructivist. You might be confusing it with obstinancy, which has a totally different formula. But anyway, LII and LSI are both obstinate. So are ILI's (hence the never ending arguments in this forum. lol).

I'd like to add though, we might already be having several ideas of what 'strict' is. The kind of strict, which LII's have, is simply having high standards. As we usually try to figure out and break down how something came to be, LII are not very easy to impress. Kind of like seeing through magic/politician tricks and/or being our own movie spoilers by rationalizing too much. Though we don't usually force these ideas upon others. Being obstinate and not abandoning positions, if you're referring to the Reinin trait, is more general to all and not exclusive to Ti-doms.

PS: I'm actually thinking someone will quote me just for mentioning Reinin. Lmao I didn't start it.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

sinigang said:


> Using the word hostile may be too much to describe ignoring function. I think simply means what the word meant itself, the function is ignored. PoLR on the other hand fits the connotation of hostile. As LII, I simply take information/facts for granted, as ignored Te implies. It might be strong (id block) but at the same time it is not really that valued.
> 
> Since you mentioned it, inert logic, I believe, is Reinin emotivist vs constructivist. You might be confusing it with obstinancy, which has a totally different formula. But anyway, LII and LSI are both obstinate. So are ILI's (hence the never ending arguments in this forum. lol).
> 
> ...


Obstinate is not a bad word but as someone that dislikes the rigidly of "Ti" its appropriate, "inert functions" 1, 4, 6 and 7 could all be described as obstinate/hostile. Its in line with Gulenko and is something. Apparently all types are stubborn towards their inert functions, so the arguments aren't restricted to INTxs


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

esq said:


> @_cyamitide_, I need you to stop telling people that such and such type is their dual or supervisor because of Socionics. Or that whichever type translates if you flip the J/P. I'll bring up the four dichotomies again: I/E, S/N, T/F, P/J. I will claim that the majority of people type themselves via these four. The introductory tests all focus on these and MBTI newbies are acquainted with these before they ever hear a word about cognitive functions. So I don't care about how J describes an extraverted judging function. MBTI's function model is at least a little bit fucked up until you show me it isn't. From my perspective, the same four dichotomies can be used to type a person into Socionics, because as I see it, they describe the same phenomena in both systems. All your annoying posts make the assumption that people ignore what J/P is supposed to mean, and that they only care about the cognitive functions.


Sorry but that method of typing, using only I/E, S/N, T/F, P/J and completely ignoring function orientations is plain wrong. None of us are newbies in this forum and most people who have understood the theory know that there is a big difference that orientation makes: Te vs Ti, Fe vs Fi and so on, that it's not just T/F.

The J/P letters in themselves mean nothing. They are only there to specify the orientation of dominant and auxiliary function. This was mentioned multiple times in this thread for MBTI beginners: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...e-when-studying-mbti-cognitive-functions.html


----------



## ParetoCaretheStare (Jan 18, 2012)

Alhazred said:


> Disagree,
> 
> Primo, the socionics functions are a bit different than MBTI ones. You can roughly convert Ti and Te in Structural and Practical logic, but Se is not exactly the same as Will Sensorics, neither Fe is Emotional Ethics.
> 
> ...



It's interesting that you mention Socionics going to far into detail, because it brings up an important question about society and the way the people who govern it attempt to mold its individuals. The more detailed, perhaps the more likely a person is to try to fit that mold, once they put their effort into learning about the system.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> LII are actually strict and conservative on abstract logic terms being hostile to new facts, "Te" facts. The hostility to "facts" in not to be confused with the openness to "Ne" since the two are not the same. LIIs don't want to be told that they have to abandon their logical frameworks when the new slightest bit of Te data arises,




Hmm. What does "Te data" mean, as opposed to "Pe data"? 

By the way, there are different approaches an LII may take. My approach is to reserve Ti analysis rather than to abandon it, when data is shown that contradicts my system. The reason I trust my Ti is that I construct my systems to be very error-friendly, i.e. they can be refined easily if new data is made available. Why? Because they're so heavily based on N. While Ti is indeed logical and rigid, and thus one change can blow the whole thing up, if the route to creating it involved significant Pi, in some sense the Ti system can remain _unchanged in essentials_ and instead refined to reflect what Pi-Te interplay has reluctantly decoded. 
My perception of data is not concrete, but abstract, so it is easy to assimilate new data into my Ti systems.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're pointing to the discrepancy between the Ti's theoretical deductions and the Te's objective ones. It really depends how much energy one has, though -- while typically Pe feeds the subjective system, whose purpose may be roughly just the user's understanding (and thus somewhat unconcerned with proper objective analysis anyway), a strong intuitive focus, e.g. developed N, can lead to relatively little worry when Te contradictions arise, and easy refinements of the Ti-system take over. 

If I was Ti-ing out of amusement, maybe I won't take the trouble, but I generally respect the data, even if there's some resistance in me. I respect it, but I'm not impressed by it - perhaps as someone wrote. I would rather produce a new and improved Ti system with the perceived reasons for the Te-contradictions encoded, again, as always, error-friendly - open to the time I may need to refine it yet again.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

bearotter said:


> Hmm. What does "Te data" mean, as opposed to "Pe data"?
> 
> By the way, there are different approaches an LII may take. My approach is to reserve Ti analysis rather than to abandon it, when data is shown that contradicts my system. The reason I trust my Ti is that I construct my systems to be very error-friendly, i.e. they can be refined easily if new data is made available. Why? Because they're so heavily based on N. While Ti is indeed logical and rigid, and thus one change can blow the whole thing up, if the route to creating it involved significant Pi, in some sense the Ti system can remain _unchanged in essentials_ and instead refined to reflect what Pi-Te interplay has reluctantly decoded.
> My perception of data is not concrete, but abstract, so it is easy to assimilate new data into my Ti systems.
> ...


You answered your own question pretty much, it is "Ne" data that makes you refine your model, not the question as to whether the "facts" that drive your framework are behind. Only when it because clear that there are new frameworks that could spice up your Ti model is when you are prepared to change your on look. Otherwise once the "Ne" data of your interest satisfies your Ti framework, you see no point in ever thinking about evaluating it. All types are like this with regards to the opposing nature of their ignoring function to the lead. Ti ignores Te, Ni- Ne, Si-Se, Fi -Fe.

For INTps, the shebang is the same except its with regard to "Ne", when their "Ni" model satisfies "Te" facts, they will see no point in ever revisiting it. It will be only on those rare times when they realize that new "Ne" data could spice up their "Ni" frameworks.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@bearotter 
The thread below was point of speculation of how the inert (stubborn) attitude could manifest itself in extroverts. 
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/131855-extroverts-ignoring-function-flaws.html


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> You answered your own question pretty much, it is "Ne" data that makes you refine your model, not the question as to whether the "facts" that drive your framework are behind. Only when it because clear that there are new frameworks that could spice up your Ti model is when you are prepared to change your on look. Otherwise once the "Ne" data of your interest satisfies your Ti framework, you see no point in ever thinking about evaluating it.




The thing though is when comfortable with Ni, I find it is most interesting to take the objective truths and assimilate them into a better Ti system. So while Te contradictions are a bother, they do open up the possibility to introverted-perceive, and thus build a better system. After all, Ti systems are best formed not just from objective, but also abstract data.

I may be _careless_ with Te, and perhaps be a bit bored by it, but I have enough respect for it that I'll find it worth my while to refine my Ti systems.

In fact, to the contrary, I get bored when I don't have something to refine in my Ti systems. I'm far from inclined to be satisfied with what I have. It's more a restlessness for there to be more to understand than an inherent love for Te that makes me not quite have the problem you describe.

Then again, I'm far from an extrovert; when I extrovert, it's mostly through Pe, true, but I'm overall introverted on almost all counts.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Sollertis said:


> What is the rough equivalent of Socionics types to MBTI types?


Types determined by preferences are same. INTJ in MBT is INTJ in Socionics.



> How respected is Socionics scientifically?


Same as MBT too. It have no scientific experimental basis still.



> Can anyone recommend any good papers/books on the subject of Socionics, profiling, or general psychology?


All good books are in Russian. But you may read articles translated to English on different socionics forums, the basic theory is rather short and easy.



> What is Socionics' basis for the physical descriptions?


Hypotheses and subjective experience.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

bearotter said:


> The thing though is when comfortable with Ni, I find it is most interesting to take the objective truths and assimilate them into a better Ti system. So while Te contradictions are a bother, they do open up the possibility to introverted-perceive, and thus build a better system. After all, Ti systems are best formed not just from objective, but also abstract data.
> 
> I may be _careless_ with Te, and perhaps be a bit bored by it, but I have enough respect for it that I'll find it worth my while to refine my Ti systems.
> 
> ...


 I have to say I'm the same with "Ne"


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@bearotter 

Are you more interested in the cognitive side of socionics or the outward quadra values, IM values("behaviour bits" how well you fit the values given)?


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@Boolean11, I have mainly learned about Jungian functions in my time on PCafe. My mental goal to be honest is to fuse the means of typing into the most descriptive system possible; I respect segregations for descriptive potential, but reconciliation of these tends to be where I use both N elements most. If possible, it would be nice to isolate precisely in what senses the means of typing do and don't contradict each other, and then to make the necessary adjustments.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Alhazred said:


> Let’s take INFP and INFj: Fi (MBTI)/Relationship Ethics (Socionics) as primary/dominant, Ne(MBTI)/Intuition of Opportunities (Socionics) as auxilliary/creative. Here comes difference: Si (MBTI)/Will Sensorics (socionics), which people associate with Se in the position of Tertiary/Mobilizing function. (There are more commonalities between Si and Interior Sensation Sensorics, than between Si and Will sensorics). Te(MBTI)/Practical Logic as Inferior/Suggestive, here MBTI and Socionics agree.





Alhazred said:


> But apparently that the same logic doesn’t apply to ISTP/ISTj. They have roughly same cognitive functions hierarchy: Ti/Logic of Structure, Se/Will sensorics. Here comes the difference Ni(MBTI)/Intuition of Opportunities (same as ENFp leading function,).Fe/Emotional Ethics as inferior/suggestive. And despite this, you have two different guys. Like one very P, another very J.
> Then, compare ISTP and ISTp, functions are different and not at the same positions, but these guys are quite same. Some differences, but most things are quite common.


You seem a bit confused about mobilizing function of INFj and ISTj...




esq said:


> SLI is similar to ISTP in terms of introvertness, apathy, changeability, mechanical interests, rebellion, stir craziness, etc. ISTP becomes less recognizable when it begins to focus on Se-ish aspects: daredevilry and a constant need for sensation. Which doesn't mean those aspects are not present in the SLI. I enjoy speed and physical activity, long hard manual labor, physical adventure, etc, also. I tell people I enjoy bad weather because it feels nice on my skin.
> 
> There are descriptions that make the ISTP sound like an Se-dom, and also threads where people say they don't identify with that. Yes there are probably some SLEs in the ISTP forum. There are also a few recognizable SLIs, and perhaps also some LSIs though I can't really tell. Anyways please inform me where LSI and ISTP intersect because I cannot see it.
> 
> ...


If you mean MBTI ones then yes to some extent, I'm actually often a bit divided between ISTP and ESTP descriptions  I relate a lot to some of the Ti aspects of ISTP, not just the Se of ESTP/ISTP. Otoh, not quite everything about ISTP fits, e.g. I don't really have the mechanical interests like stereotypical ISTP's do and I'm not so avoidant of people.




cyamitide said:


> Sorry but that method of typing, using only I/E, S/N, T/F, P/J and completely ignoring function orientations is plain wrong. None of us are newbies in this forum and most people who have understood the theory know that there is a big difference that orientation makes: Te vs Ti, Fe vs Fi and so on, that it's not just T/F.


It's plain wrong if you declare it to be wrong  But yeah... I do find it interesting that there's no agreement even on this simple question, e.g. original MBTI starts from that point of just the dichotomies and even Jung kind of puts the functions together from I/E orientation and the other dichotomies, only using the eight functions for dominant function. He did write somewhere that an auxiliary can also get differentiated sometimes, though.




ParetoCaretheStare said:


> It's interesting that you mention Socionics going to far into detail, because it brings up an important question about society and the way the people who govern it attempt to mold its individuals. The more detailed, perhaps the more likely a person is to try to fit that mold, once they put their effort into learning about the system.


Lol that's quite the wishful thinking, you really think people will painstakingly change themselves to fit some random description more than they happen to fit it by default? And if that was even possible (nope it isn't) they'd still need to have a reason to try.


----------



## esq (Jun 7, 2012)

Sort of. Typology tends to introduce you to the self you were unaware of, like that shocking revelation that most people have when reading these descriptions. And it might force a person to accept certain natural parts of himself. Most descriptions also include like an advice section, recommendations for personal growth, etc. I might say that MBTI made me more ready to ignore people's opinions and also gave me a reason to become more physical, if not a stuntmonkey. So for some people, this is even useful if the description and the advice makes sense.

@_itsme45_, would it offend you if I said I do not sense an Fi-PoLR in you? You seem very tactful, so by now I'm not really sure what Fi-PoLR is supposed to be. Could you explain it to me?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

esq said:


> Sort of. Typology tends to introduce you to the self you were unaware of, like that shocking revelation that most people have when reading these descriptions. And it might force a person to accept certain natural parts of himself. Most descriptions also include like an advice section, recommendations for personal growth, etc. I might say that MBTI made me more ready to ignore people's opinions and also gave me a reason to become more physical, if not a stuntmonkey. So for some people, this is even useful if the description and the advice makes sense.


Yeah it helps see myself better. The growth recommendations are interesting too, though I've yet to utilize many of them. But, change myself to fit a detailed description? Nah...




> @_itsme45_, would it offend you if I said I do not sense an Fi-PoLR in you? You seem very tactful, so by now I'm not really sure what Fi-PoLR is supposed to be. Could you explain it to me?


No worries, no offense taken ;P Hey I'll actually take this as a compliment  as I really don't think of myself as being good at tact by default. 

Basically, when I state things I usually don't stop to think and make it sound nicer. If I do try, it can be a PITA, much easier for me to just say what I think. As a result, I'm often told by certain people that I talk too bluntly but I myself don't perceive this so easily. Or I can do something that they don't like. So, there are people that get easily offended but the worst is if they don't tell me about their hurt or not until something else happens. The problem is, I'm really bad at noticing that something's up with them if it's not explicit. That's annoying because I don't have bad intentions and I don't try or want to hurt anyone by default, yet it happens. I've also had people complain to each other behind my back because they wouldn't want to confront me about their issues, eh I hate that sort of thing. (Do I now sound terrible enough?  ) It'd be a lot easier if they told me right away.

The other thing that I'm bad at is close relationships, Actually, what's a close relationship?  OK, of course I've had relationships (friends, romantic) yet I feel like something's not quite within my grasp. Hard to explain this well but it's something about what I notice/value and what gets ignored. I like to spend time together by doing things, talking about things, having all kinds of fun together, but I don't think about feelings and will forget about most relationships easily. A relationship just doesn't exist much without these things I listed. Also most of my relationships aren't deep at all. If I do get to feel something about someone, well it's hard to handle in a neat way (I don't necessarily mean just romantic interest). Anyway by default I simply just don't think of discussing feelings. Don't really like to, either. I'm good at avoiding this 

Ah, also, I don't like being judged by others, I definitely overreact to that sort of thing, I often misunderstand such situations. At the same time, I don't do much in terms of making personal judgments about people. That doesn't mean I'm naive enough to be taken advantage of and of course I like some people more than others because we e.g. have more fun together but that's not a judgment about them as a person, not "good" or "bad", pft, I don't try to analyse people in this way and don't care to. 

OK so I attribute all these things to crappy unvalued Fi. Some of it could be sucky Fe too or something else. 

Does this help? Btw, did you have any thoughts on my Fi or why ask?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> even Jung kind of puts the functions together from I/E orientation and the other dichotomies, only using the eight functions for dominant function. He did write somewhere that an auxiliary can also get differentiated sometimes, though.


So Jung was adverse of the idea that people can differentiate more than one function? Then what was the point of tertiary? XD


> Lol that's quite the wishful thinking, you really think people will painstakingly change themselves to fit some random description more than they happen to fit it by default? And if that was even possible (nope it isn't) they'd still need to have a reason to try.


I can see how really unhealthy people could try to do this but just not the average bloke. I personally couldn't do it, it goes against my personal ethics and sense of self. Like I'm fake and I strongly dislike that feeling. Everyone might not agree or have such issues with that, though.

Regarding your second post, I'm just ? That's so totally foreign to me and who I am. Perhaps you come off as more tactful on the forum? Although I remember you told me once I was tactless  I think that was more of a communication problem though, because I can a little harsh around the edges too but compared to some people in this forum for example, I know when to stop 

Then again, I know for a fact I appear as more aggressive on the forum. I spoke to a guy yesterday who had been typed as a part of his leadership course and introduced to the basics of the MBTI and he was certain I was an INFJ, and I've had several trolls on my Youtube channel tell me I must be an INFP lol. I don't put so much stock in it, but it's an interesting observation that how people perceive me IRL (videos are closer than a forum are due to body language etc) think I come off as a feeler. 

I suppose that outside the forum you and I would prolly have issues being around each other for longer periods of time. I'm not so interested in doing activities with people. I have an SLE cousin and she's the same way. I get more out of discussions and such. We sometimes go to the movies together but we don't stick around afterwards to discuss it, really. I find that a little frustrating. And I definitely notice the more open and fleeting relationships thing with her too. Close friendship and that kind of intimacy isn't the kind of relationship she looks for like I do. I'm rather close friends with one person than loose friends with many. 

I can appreciate her bluntless at times and she's really loyal and stands up for people, I can definitely see how you two are similar, but it's a little difficult too because I notice that we are so different in our way of being and what we value. She's pretty dead on beta, down to her decoration style lol. 

And sometimes when she thinks I'm being rude she can be REALLY nitpicky on something I say even though I don't see the problem myself. Do you experience that too?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LeaT said:


> So Jung was adverse of the idea that people can differentiate more than one function? Then what was the point of tertiary? XD


 It just says somewhere that it's rare for an aux to be differentiated fully. Then other people made their own theories that have a specific orientation for auxiliary and tertiary functions too.




> I can see how really unhealthy people could try to do this but just not the average bloke. I personally couldn't do it, it goes against my personal ethics and sense of self. Like I'm fake and I strongly dislike that feeling. Everyone might not agree or have such issues with that, though.


My issue wouldn't be that it's fake, I just don't work this way, I don't and simply am incapable of acting accordingly to whatever plan about how I should be. I work better with concrete goals that relate to something else, instead.




> Regarding your second post, I'm just ? That's so totally foreign to me and who I am. Perhaps you come off as more tactful on the forum? Although I remember you told me once I was tactless  I think that was more of a communication problem though, because I can a little harsh around the edges too but compared to some people in this forum for example, I know when to stop


Well you are Fi-base so... yeah.

I don't know if I come off that tactful to everyone on the forum. I could find examples where I definitely wasn't 

Btw, I remember it too.  I think you know that I didn't have a problem with you, it was just an observation and then commenting if it was to do with weak (MBTI) Fe or whatever. I recall the "target" of your post got pretty upset over it though. 




> I suppose that outside the forum you and I would prolly have issues being around each other for longer periods of time. I'm not so interested in doing activities with people. I have an SLE cousin and she's the same way. I get more out of discussions and such. We sometimes go to the movies together but we don't stick around afterwards to discuss it, really. I find that a little frustrating. And I definitely notice the more open and fleeting relationships thing with her too. Close friendship and that kind of intimacy isn't the kind of relationship she looks for like I do. I'm rather close friends with one person than loose friends with many.


Who knows, I prefer not to make predictions like that.  

Btw I actually like to discuss interesting movies after seeing them, though it might be me mostly listening to the other person talking about it and commenting here and there.




> I can appreciate her bluntless at times and she's really loyal and stands up for people, I can definitely see how you two are similar, but it's a little difficult too because I notice that we are so different in our way of being and what we value. She's pretty dead on beta, down to her decoration style lol.


What's beta decoration style like? 




> And sometimes when she thinks I'm being rude she can be REALLY nitpicky on something I say even though I don't see the problem myself. Do you experience that too?


Are you asking if I nitpick on others when I find them rude?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> My issue wouldn't be that it's fake, I just don't work this way, I don't and simply am incapable of acting accordingly to whatever plan about how I should be. I work better with concrete goals that relate to something else, instead.


Well, I agree to a degree although some really ill people will read a profile and go, I'm like that and pretend like they are consciously so 


> Well you are Fi-base so... yeah.
> 
> I don't know if I come off that tactful to everyone on the forum. I could find examples where I definitely wasn't
> 
> Btw, I remember it too.  I think you know that I didn't have a problem with you, it was just an observation and then commenting if it was to do with weak (MBTI) Fe or whatever. I recall the "target" of your post got pretty upset over it though.


Yes, she was, she misunderstood my intentions clearly. I notice this a lot and you are right that it pertains more to MBTI Fe likely, although I see a correlation between the two to a degree.


> Who knows, I prefer not to make predictions like that.
> 
> Btw I actually like to discuss interesting movies after seeing them, though it might be me mostly listening to the other person talking about it and commenting here and there.


Maybe  The difference between Ne and Se ego? I can be a little jumping ahead at times like that, not because I think it has to be true, I just like to speculate.


> What's beta decoration style like?


She's fairly materialistic with a lot of focus on aesthetics. It's hard to explain.


> Are you asking if I nitpick on others when I find them rude?


Yes.


----------

