# Confused with sensing in MBTI vs Socionics



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

I recently got typed as an SLE in Socionics even though I seem to consider myself an ILI..

Now I'm left confused between MBTI's version of sensing and Socionics version of sensing.

I've already read as much as I could on the subject but I'm still confused. Can anyone enlighten me as to the difference between the two? Is it is possible to be both an INTJ and an SLE?

Wouldn't an SLE just be an ESTP? I'm nothing like that all..


----------



## JWC3 (Jun 4, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> I recently got typed as an SLE in Socionics even though I seem to consider myself an ILI..
> 
> Now I'm left confused between MBTI's version of sensing and Socionics version of sensing.
> 
> ...


Hiya Scarlett  Sorry I didn't respond to your thread on 16t, I really don't care for that environment much as a place to discuss socionics. People there tend to be mostly social rather than interested in actually discussing socionics. I can take a gander at your questionnaire though if you like.

As for MBTI sensing and Socionics sensing, it's best to view the two as separate and distinct. Yes they may both be refereed to as sensing, however the connection between the two is nonexistent beyond their names. Really if you are trying to learn socionics, it's best to approach it as a completely new language that has absolutely no MBTI translation despite the perceived cognates.

Unfortunately I cannot elucidate the difference between Socionics and MBTI in this regard because I don't have much experience with MBTI. That being said, someone could be an INTJ in MBTI and an SLE in Socionics the same way someone could be a Libra according to the zodiac and a SEE in Socionics. Socionics has absolutely no interaction with the zodiac, and the same is true of it and MBTI. They both codify personality in radically different ways.

Keep that in mind, because it's easy to make the assumption that SLEs are similar to MBTI ESTPs because of the perceived Jungian connection. This is not the case. Someone may certainly be both SLE and ESTP, but the two types themselves don't correlate because one deals with behaviors and decision making, while the other attempts to codify personal values.

Long story short, if you try to understand MBTI through the lens of Socionics, or vice versa, you're only going to end up with a confusing bastardization of both. This is exactly what the 16t user Maritsa did, and is also why her typing's are almost always inaccurate (I wouldn't trust her ESTp typing farther than I could throw it, and since it's a mental abstraction I literally can't physically interact with it at all). I suggest if you want to start finding out whose opinions regarding socionics are worthwhile start to challenge them, ask for their reasoning and see if it makes sense to your understanding.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

What JWC3 said I agree with, from the standpoint of method, you shouldnt confuse the two. They are two different languages. 

In socionics the focus of sensing is on how you use space, whereas in MBTI it is how you perceive sensations.


----------



## JWC3 (Jun 4, 2012)

Typhon said:


> What JWC3 said I agree with, from the standpoint of method, you shouldnt confuse the two. They are two different languages.
> 
> In socionics the focus of sensing is on how you use space, whereas in MBTI it is how you perceive sensations.


Perceiving sensation in socionics is more readily attributed to Si than Se. Even saying Si deals with physical sensation is a very incomplete translation though and there's a lot more to Si than physical sensation. Also, strong Si is often attributed with keen senses, which is a misnomer.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

JWC3 said:


> Perceiving sensation in socionics is more readily attributed to Si than Se. Even saying Si deals with physical sensation is a very incomplete translation though.


Yeah, Si is called "sensation of senations" or "sensational sensorics" but when you look at how the function is described to manifest itself, it really deals with how one creates a pleasant environment. Si in socionics seems to be more about creating pleasant surroundings and conditions, whereas Se is about expansion and control of territory.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

JWC3 said:


> Hiya Scarlett  Sorry I didn't respond to your thread on 16t, I really don't care for that environment much as a place to discuss socionics. People there tend to be mostly social rather than interested in actually discussing socionics. I can take a gander at your questionnaire though if you like.
> 
> As for MBTI sensing and Socionics sensing, it's best to view the two as separate and distinct. Yes they may both be refereed to as sensing, however the connection between the two is nonexistent beyond their names. Really if you are trying to learn socionics, it's best to approach it as a completely new language that has absolutely no MBTI translation despite the perceived cognates.
> 
> ...


Are you the one who practically screamed with joy at apparently being my dual? 

I've gathered though that the two systems are completely different, but there seems to be so much overlap that I can't tell which rightfully belongs where. 

So if I get this straight.. MBTI analyzes psychological function, Enneagram analyzes motivation and Socionics analyzes behaviour?

From my questionnaire what would you type me as then?



Typhon said:


> In socionics the focus of sensing is on how you use space, whereas in MBTI it is how you perceive sensations.


The thing is I spend a lot of time alone and I guess I manage my space efficiently. If you can call manipulating people to stay away from me as a form of controlling my territory and space? I do have a fascination with control but I'm not sure I'm really motivated to actually be controlling; directly at least. I know ILI has Se as one of it's main weaker functions so that could have effect but I still don't know that much about socionics to be able to tell..

For sure I'm some sort of xxTp though.


----------



## Deftodon (Jul 27, 2013)

What test did you take?


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

Deftodon said:


> What test did you take?


I didn't take a test.. I answered a questionnaire thing on Socionics - the16types.info forums

On tests I usually get either ILE, ILI, LII, or LIE, and sometimes SLE and a couple of other sensing types I can't remember.

I read that tests are only around 30% accurate so that's why I wanted an outside opinion.


----------



## JWC3 (Jun 4, 2012)

I would say socionics measures the way we codify and interpret information. Possibly in a broader sense it measures 'values'.

As for screaming with joy, that was likely scapegrace *chuckles* More than likely she was being catty with Maritsa and not actually commenting on your type. Scape doesn't really care about or take socionics seriously at all. Shes on 16t for what appears to be mostly social reasons.

Glancing over your questionnaire I would lean towards beta/gamma values. I shouldn't imply that Maritsa is always wrong, she isn't, though her reasoning can be very strange. I actually wouldn't count SLE out just yet, you seem to have an edge to you that is not uncommon in beta/gamma logical types. At this point though I wouldn't say I have much confidence beyond "some beta/gamma type" and "not delta".


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

JWC3 said:


> I would say socionics measures the way we codify and interpret information. Possibly in a broader sense it measures 'values'.
> 
> As for screaming with joy, that was likely scapegrace *chuckles* More than likely she was being catty with Maritsa and not actually commenting on your type. Scape doesn't really care about or take socionics seriously at all. Shes on 16t for what appears to be mostly social reasons.
> 
> Glancing over your questionnaire I would lean towards beta/gamma values. I shouldn't imply that Maritsa is always wrong, she isn't, though her reasoning can be very strange. I actually wouldn't count SLE out just yet, you seem to have an edge to you that is not uncommon in beta/gamma logical types. At this point though I wouldn't say I have much confidence beyond "some beta/gamma type" and "not delta".


16t is frustrating me a little since no one ever seems to give clear answers. Or rather they do but they don't explain their reasoning behind it and I have no way to judge whether their assumptions are correct or not. I'm glad you can help me out here.

Anyway, I read this last night and then did some research on quadras. I would definitely say the Beta quadra describes me best, weirdly enough. And I know for sure that I'm an xxTP.. so that does only leave SLE. 

I also came across DCNH subtypes and I feel like I relate to the harmonizing subtype the best, which would make me SLE-Ni (although I could be the Ti creative subtype too). But if I'm Ni dominant or Ti dominant might I just as well just be an ILI or an LSI? Isn't it just simpler to put it that way? 

I can see how MBTI and Socionics are completely different now though haha.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

On the other hand, there's no reason why they ought to be so completely different when they are both based on the same thing.

The fact that everyone demands that they are seems quite suspect to me. Like everyone is trying to cover something up. And I think I have a good idea what that something is.

But don't take my word for it. Spend enough time immersed in this subject and discussing it with people who believe in it and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## JWC3 (Jun 4, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> 16t is frustrating me a little since no one ever seems to give clear answers. Or rather they do but they don't explain their reasoning behind it and I have no way to judge whether their assumptions are correct or not. I'm glad you can help me out here.
> 
> Anyway, I read this last night and then did some research on quadras. I would definitely say the Beta quadra describes me best, weirdly enough. And I know for sure that I'm an xxTP.. so that does only leave SLE.
> 
> ...


Yeah, there are actually very few people on 16t who have any real interst in discussing socionics despite it being a socionics forum. If you want clearly reasoned answers from its members you sort of have to challenge them or ask questions like (in response to an SLE typing) "What sticks out to you as indicative of beta values?" or "Does it seem like I don't value Ne?" Needless to say this has lead to a sort of combative and easily provoked atmosphere of discussion which is largely why most users don't bother discussing socionics much for fear of getting attacked. Basically no one can cut anyone down if no ones reasoning is apparent.

As for subtypes, I'm decidedly not the guy worth talking to *chuckles* I don't much care for subtypes as worthwhile in general. More oftenthan not I just see subtype systems used to justify incorrect base typings. Things like "I don't act very LII cause I'm LII subtype whatever". They can be interesting if you just want to read about them for fun, but I find their practical application suspect.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

JWC3 said:


> Yeah, there are actually very few people on 16t who have any real interst in discussing socionics despite it being a socionics forum. If you want clearly reasoned answers from its members you sort of have to challenge them or ask questions like (in response to an SLE typing) "What sticks out to you as indicative of beta values?" or "Does it seem like I don't value Ne?" Needless to say this has lead to a sort of combative and easily provoked atmosphere of discussion which is largely why most users don't bother discussing socionics much for fear of getting attacked. Basically no one can cut anyone down if no ones reasoning is apparent.
> 
> As for subtypes, I'm decidedly not the guy worth talking to *chuckles* I don't much care for subtypes as worthwhile in general. More oftenthan not I just see subtype systems used to justify incorrect base typings. Things like "I don't act very LII cause I'm LII subtype whatever". They can be interesting if you just want to read about them for fun, but I find their practical application suspect.


Thanks for the advice. I think I'll do just that. But I think not saying your legitimate opinion for fear of combat on what is basically a psychology forum is a little ridiculous. This site is by far the best anyway. :crazy:

I think subtypes are cool.. but I'm not really doing it for any reason really. I figured out my MBTI type (finally) and now I'm bored and need something else to figure out about myself I guess haha. But I think you're right about the mistyping. 

I think maybe Maritsa saw a lot of Se in my questionnaire.. and I can see why. Although the two systems aren't the same I also get high Se in MBTI. It's more likely I'm a C-ILI who values Se more.

MBTI seems far better to use practically, even if it's not correct.


----------



## JWC3 (Jun 4, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> MBTI seems far better to use practically, even if it's not correct.


Couldn't say personally. I dislike punitive applications of any personality theory though.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

ScarlettHayden said:


> I think maybe Maritsa saw a lot of Se in my questionnaire.. and I can see why. Although the two systems aren't the same I also get high Se in MBTI. It's more likely I'm a C-ILI who values Se more.


Maritsa sees Se in most people. She thinks I and a number of other females on the board are SEE, usually for fairly shitty reasons related to disagreement with her, confronting her over bullshit, or other stuff she's gotten into her head. I wouldn't take her typing seriously in the least.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@ScarlettHayden,

http://personalitycafe.com/general-psychology/8799-kevinaswells-big-5-break-down-get-educated.html


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> On the other hand, there's no reason why they ought to be so completely different when they are both based on the same thing.
> 
> The fact that everyone demands that they are seems quite suspect to me. Like everyone is trying to cover something up. *And I think I have a good idea what that something is.*
> 
> But don't take my word for it. Spend enough time immersed in this subject and discussing it with people who believe in it and you'll see what I mean.


As for the bolded; What's that idea of yours, did you describe it anywhere? 




ScarlettHayden said:


> I think maybe Maritsa saw a lot of Se in my questionnaire.. and I can see why. *Although the two systems aren't the same I also get high Se in MBTI*. It's more likely I'm a C-ILI who values Se more.


As for the bolded: perhaps relevant quote from the best MBTI function test that's around: 

_"What if the 4-letter code reported here is different from what you expected? Say your type code result here is ESTP and the type you are familiar with for yourself is INTJ. Even though the type codes look quite different, you may have rated the cognitive processes for these two types rather closely. Also, keep in mind the cognitive profile is based on your responses. Continuing with the example, if you didn't think of yourself as an ESTP, then you would want to explore why you rated highly a phrase such as "freely follow your gut instincts and exciting physical impulses as they come up." This phrase clearly does not fit with the INTJ type pattern."_

Otoh, what do you have against being SLE? Why do you think of yourself as ILI more than SLE?




Kanerou said:


> Maritsa sees Se in most people. She thinks I and a number of other females on the board are SEE, usually for fairly shitty reasons related to disagreement with her, confronting her over bullshit, or other stuff she's gotten into her head. I wouldn't take her typing seriously in the least.


She didn't see Se in my face. -.- Lol.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

> Is it is possible to be both an INTJ and an SLE?

No. Sensory type in MBT is sensory in Socionics. INTJ in MBT is INTJ in Socionics, same with other types. The problem is that very often people type incorrectly.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> As for the bolded: perhaps relevant quote from the best MBTI function test that's around:
> 
> _"What if the 4-letter code reported here is different from what you expected? Say your type code result here is ESTP and the type you are familiar with for yourself is INTJ. Even though the type codes look quite different, you may have rated the cognitive processes for these two types rather closely. Also, keep in mind the cognitive profile is based on your responses. Continuing with the example, if you didn't think of yourself as an ESTP, then you would want to explore why you rated highly a phrase such as "freely follow your gut instincts and exciting physical impulses as they come up." This phrase clearly does not fit with the INTJ type pattern."_
> 
> Otoh, what do you have against being SLE? Why do you think of yourself as ILI more than SLE?


Well, I read that Se in socionics is more related to being aware of the shift in power in a room or something. So I have that but.. if SLE is just exactly the same as ESTP in MBTI then I'm really not that at all. I'm an INTJ through and through.

I think I was just confused on the terminology and the differences between them, but I'm pretty sure I'm probably just an ILI-Te now.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> Well, I read that Se in socionics is more related to being aware of the shift in power in a room or something. So I have that but.. if SLE is just exactly the same as ESTP in MBTI then I'm really not that at all. I'm an INTJ through and through.
> 
> I think I was just confused on the terminology and the differences between them, but I'm pretty sure I'm probably just an ILI-Te now.


Hmm okay... btw no it doesn't have to be the exact same as ESTP but Se is more than just about power/hierarchy even in socionics


----------



## Rodrigo Blanco (May 28, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> On the other hand, t*here's no reason why they ought to be so completely different when they are both based on the same thing.*
> 
> The fact that everyone demands that they are seems quite suspect to me. Like everyone is trying to cover something up. And I think I have a good idea what that something is.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. Spend enough time immersed in this subject and discussing it with people who believe in it and you'll see what I mean.


Like OMG.. two different people working in two different places at two different times managed to come up with systems that differ from each other even though they worked from the same initial source material.. thats impossible...


----------



## Rodrigo Blanco (May 28, 2013)

Sol_ said:


> > Is it is possible to be both an INTJ and an SLE?
> 
> No. Sensory type in MBT is sensory in Socionics. INTJ in MBT is INTJ in Socionics, same with other types. The problem is that very often people type incorrectly.


How does this equal to MBTI? Do explain.. 

Socionics Si (*experiential sensing)*: *tangible connections between processes happening in one place and time*: how events affect one's inner state; sensations, what one experiences physically
Socionics Se (*volitional sensing)*: *outward traits of objects*: form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower, mobilization, the location of objects in space


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Rodrigo Blanco said:


> How does this equal to MBTI? Do explain..
> 
> Socionics Si (*experiential sensing)*: *tangible connections between processes happening in one place and time*: how events affect one's inner state; sensations, what one experiences physically
> Socionics Se (*volitional sensing)*: *outward traits of objects*: form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower, mobilization, the location of objects in space


Yea, right, socionics Si does *not at all* equal the more common version of Si JCF definition. And that's telling a lot..... don't you think so?  It does correlate pretty well with the other JCF Si definition floating around, which is about internal body sensations. But yeah standard MBTI sites will usually only mention the former Si definition. That one has nothing to do with socionics Si. Otoh, jungian Si does have quite some things in common with socionics Si though the Si type as described by Jung isn't that similar to socionics Si-base type descriptions. It's just the introverted sensation definition itself that kind of works out.

As for socionics Se, much of what you quoted correlates pretty well with any other Se definition out there. Things like outward traits of objects, spatial orientation, readiness and mobilization correlate well with all the Se definitions floating around. As for the power/control/will aspect, some of that kind of overlaps with JCF Te and uh, Jung for sure never spoke about that sort of stuff in terms of Se either. Jung only connected will to the ego, not to any function. And even in socionics, direct displays of power seeking motivations are not associated with all of the Se egos, e.g. SEE not so much.

Well that's as far as I know...

Also. I was talking about JCF version of MBTI, not official MBTI. Official MBTI just has the four letters/dichotomies. E.g. someone could be ENTP in official MBTI and ENFP in JCF... ENTP because of NeTe (or just E, N and T) being most prominent and ENFP because of NeFi being preferred functions. And this person's type in socionics staying ENFP, well that depends on how much of socionics Ne and other functions the person fits  we can make this ENFP ENFj/EIE for example... or ESFj or god knows what.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Rodrigo Blanco said:


> Like OMG.. two different people working in two different places at two different times managed to come up with systems that differ from each other even though they worked from the same initial source material.. thats impossible...


I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## Rodrigo Blanco (May 28, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> I'm not sure what your point is.


You stated : "_t_*here's no reason why they ought to be so completely different when they are both based on the same thing."

*My point is, if they develop two different concepts from one original, why WOULDN'T their end products define different things and thus measure different things in the same people?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> On the other hand, there's no reason why they ought to be so completely different when they are both based on the same thing.
> 
> The fact that everyone demands that they are seems quite suspect to me. Like everyone is trying to cover something up. And I think I have a good idea what that something is.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. Spend enough time immersed in this subject and discussing it with people who believe in it and you'll see what I mean.


I still don't know what you mean. What's being covered up? Care to elaborate?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ScarlettHayden said:


> Well, I read that Se in socionics is more related to being aware of the shift in power in a room or something. So I have that but.. if SLE is just exactly the same as ESTP in MBTI then I'm really not that at all. I'm an INTJ through and through.
> 
> I think I was just confused on the terminology and the differences between them, but I'm pretty sure I'm probably just an ILI-Te now.


Do you relate to this description? I should get around finishing it already.

White Intuition - Ni
ILIs operate with Ni base, making them naturally attuned to detecting hidden trends, meanings and patterns in the world around them. With intuition being introverted, the ILI is capable of reviewing long-term patterns from the past and making predictions into the present and future. This is because Ni operates similarly to Si, in that Ni needs to build models of the world by reviewing data over longer time periods. This differs to Ne base found in ILEs and IEEs who are attuned to possibilities in the present.

Introverted intuition could be best described as finding purpose and meaning beyond what can be immediately experienced that links to greater universal but fundamental truths of how the world functions. Someone with base Ni would for instance look at a clock but what they see and experience is not the clock itself but how the clock is representative of the concept of time. Further examination of the clock and the concept of time could lead to the search for greater and deeper universal truths such as how time controls the concepts of life and death and the apparent cyclical nature of the universe itself.

Ni being a perceptive function allows for information to be stored, reviewed and distilled over time into grander, universal concepts. It is this distillation process of information that allows the ILI to make predictions into the future, and it is this distillation that associates Ni with time. By time one ought to not confuse Ni with the concept of time itself either as a standard of measurement or how we understand change and movement in the physical world, but by how Ni detects and connects to universal patterns in the sense-world. It is therefore more accurate to say that Ni is timeless -- it exists outside the detected space-time continuum. It is thus this ethereal existence that allows the Ni base type to connect to time, and one can argue that Ni is capable of seeing through time itself due to its ability to detect universal concepts and patterns that are true regardless of context specifics. An example of such pattern is that one must first be born in order to be considered a living being. 

It is not always easy or possible for the Ni base type to express his or her conceptual understandings of the world due to Ni’s introverted nature. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, introverts have a greater difficulty in general to communicate with the external world due to the how their information metabolism operates. Communication with the external world relies on the acceptance of general principles. These general principles are different to the universal concepts Ni is attuned to, and expression of the universal requires the ILI to find matching external general and logical principles in order to convey the Ni visions properly.

Secondly, being of the IP temperament, the ILI tends to prefer observation over judgement. This is due to the nature of irrationality itself leading the ILI to mostly being attuned to perception data. Sorting through this data requires the active use of a judgement function, making it sometimes seem as if the ILI has troubles coming to conclusions or making decisions. Because Ni operates on detecting patterns over longer time-periods, it is possible for the ILI to find it difficult to sometimes come to definitive conclusions about the state of the world. The ILI may experience a sense of uncertainty in trusting his or her own judgements, feeling that unless a definite pattern has been formed, it is very difficult if nigh impossible to tell the true outcome of things. This could to the outsider look like unnecessary passive observation and as if the ILI does not fully know what it is he or she wants or desires and an extroverted judgement type might even experience the ILI as aimless or without a definite goal. To the eyes of the outsider, it is thus easy to mistake the ILI as a recluse who tends to drift through the world without any apparent purpose or larger life goal, predominantly defined by his or her inertia and inability to create action in the present moment even though the ILI deep down seeks a way to engage with the world in an active, rather than passive, manner.

However, to the ILI, such goals and purposes are impossible to attain without first feeling that he or she fully knows and understands what is to come due to the ILI always being guided by his or her Ni visions. Instead, decisions of importance tend to coalesce over time, resulting in a drive or move that is experienced as inevitable. As such the true nature of the irrational temperament can be observed as outsiders might wonder why the sudden movement or need for action that seems to come out of nowhere, being unaware that this spur of action has in fact been a long on-going, internal process for the ILI.

Thirdly, leading with introverted intuition means complete psychological rejection of the sense-world. All energy is focused inward, constantly distilling whatever vision the Ni base type happened to be interested in at any given moment. Intuition, working by detecting archetypal hidden meanings, is naturally difficult to explain or convey because it does not work with what is tangible, concrete and can be directly observed or experienced. This might lead to the impression that ILIs predominantly “live in their own heads” in that not only do they seem to lack interest in the world around them, but the esoteric nature of intuition might be entirely lost upon those who lack this natural ability to connect and detect hidden meanings and patterns in the sense-world. The end result might be that the Ni base type is experienced as unrealistic, unpragmatic or simply not seen as making much sense in conversation. It is therefore easy to see why the Ni base type requires the use of an extroverted judging function to be able to fully express and realize their visions in the present world. 

Black Logic - Te
The creative function of the ILI is Te, making the ILI attuned to external logical systems and facts. The ILI utilizes Te to shape his or her internal models generated by Ni, providing it with much needed structure and stability. Information is primarily sought through the use of Te, making Te the information-gathering function for the ILI. The factual nature of Te will help to ground Ni to observeable reality. As such, Te serves as the ILI’s contact function and the ILI will primarily choose to engage the world through the lens of Te by actively seeking and gathering data, primarily by referencing to existing logical structures and systems and facts. Examples of such models as used in everyday life are for instance the various metric systems that surround us. In this sense the ILI is not much different to those with base Te, except that with Te being located in the creative position, this use is not always as consistent and the ILI emphasizes less of a need to refer to these systems when explaining their models about how the world oeprates. 

Te, being an extroverted information element, emphasizes efficiency and accuracy over internal logical consistency. A typical example of Ni operating with Te would be to consider what is the most effective plan in order to solve a problem. Consider for instance that the ILI is told to find the cheapest but most efficient computer on the market. The ILI would immediately solve the problem with Ni and Te -- what is the purpose of the computer? What function(s) is it supposed to serve? Perhaps the purpose of the computer is to be able to generate complex calculations. The ILI would then seek out information with Te -- what kind of hardware and software is best suited for a computer meant to generate complex calculations? After extensive research the ILI would finally have all the answers he or she needs in order to buy such a computer. It is important to note that this should not be confused with the nature of Se that helps to realize goals in the present, through action and the manipulation of physical objects in real-time. The action of buying the computer would be the results of Se, whereas the realization of what software and hardware is required for the computer to run smoothly and be the most cost-efficient is the logical conclusions of Te. 

With Te being oriented towards the objective world, one can thus say that the ILI is more inclined towards what could be referred to as realistic pragmatism. Realistic pragmatism can be understood as the need for practical application and seeking logical and realizable logical results. Every action needs to have its logical purpose and effect. One does not go buy food for the pleasure of enjoying food, but one buys food to achieve the logical result of restocking food because we cannot live without food. 

Black Ethics - Fe
The function of Fe in the superego block makes Fe the point of least resistance (PoLR) or the vulnerable function for the ILI. Fe could be described as being attuned to the emotional atmosphere between oneself and people and provides with the ability to be sensitive to how to affect this atmosphere in various ways, both positively and negatively. In such a sense it is possible to view Fe as an element striving towards creating a sense of emotional harmony which emphasizes the connection between subject(s) rather than their internal emotional states. 

What thus separates Fe from Fi is that Fe attunes itself to the emotional tones and atmospheres in a collective sense. Fe perceives the total emotional harmony created by each subject and this creates an objective emotional tone. Being attuned to Fe means being able to detect how every individual generates their own emotional tone, and how each tone blends into a greater emotional tone that exists separate from the individuals. This is why Fe is considered an extroverted element because it focuses on the extroverted nature of emotional tones and atmospheres rather than the introverted aspect of these tones and how each individual perceives these tones in a personal sense.

As an example, an Fe type would be keenly aware of the collective sense of sadness present at a funeral, generated by all the funeral participants. This awareness of extroverted ethics makes it possible to manipulate it in various ways based on standards of appropriateness or inapproriatenessso if someone is found to express an emotional atmosphere not suited when contrasted to this collective atmosphere, the Fe type might consider it important to correct this individual's behavior to conform. 

Because Fe is the PoLR for the ILI, the ILI is naturally resistant to such an ethical perspective. Due to the ILI valuing Te over Fe, the ILI will feel incredibly incompetent when it comes to all matters concerning Fe. When the ILI is reminded to consider an Fe perspective, there is often a sense of internal refusal involved. While the level of discomfort caused by the PoLR varies between the subtypes, many ILIs will often either openly admit their incompetence utilizing Fe as a cognitive perspective or perhaps deny their inability and attempt to prove how capable they are. However, because Fe is not a valued information element such attempts to sustain Fe as a perspective will often result in failure in the long run, and outside observers might notice the obvious incompetence in this area, making the perspective being expressed in an overall very clumsy manner. There is therefore often much frustration surrounding the PoLR, where praise might be seen as extremely positive but criticism might either end up as open admittance of its true nature or complete denial of its validity. 

[(Patrick) For example, an ILI who denies their incompetence with Fe may create a semblance of Fe through expressing sentiments that appear fitting for the current situation. While ILIs typically have little trouble predicting what emotional tones are fitting, their ability to create these emotions themselves is lacking. Moreover, even when successful in fueling an emotional atmosphere, ILIs often feel empty and powerless to push their own agenda through Fe. Pulling deeply on Fe obscures the ILI’s natural Fi agenda, making the proper use of this function for their own purposes very difficult.]

White Sensorics - Si


White Ethics - Fi
Black Sensorics - Se

Black Intuition - Ne
White Logic - Ti


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> I still don't know what you mean. What's being covered up? Care to elaborate?


Bias.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Bias.


Uhh I actually think it's a more biased view to think that these two theories are the same.... that would mean subscribing to the idea of functions "as is", as if they were really existing in reality in the way the theories say they do.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Uhh I actually think it's a more biased view to think that these two theories are the same.... that would mean subscribing to the idea of functions "as is", as if they were really existing in reality in the way the theories say they do.


I don't think the two theories are the same, because they're not.

What I am saying is that both theories are essentially based on the same foundational research that Jung provided. Insofar as this is the case, they ought to - and do - have a lot in common. In my opinion, they have more in common than they differ on. While Socionics introduces the theory of information metabolism to substantiate cognitive functions as "information elements", MBTI incorporates much of the research behind the Big 5 and other trait theories into substantiating it's 4 dichotomies. In this, the two diverge and go almost opposite directions. However, this divergence is, in my opinion, greatly exaggerated by enthusiasts on both sides due to strong personal biases.

Obviously I can't do much to substantiate my take on the whole situation, but that's just how it comes across to me after all the research I've done. I'm not even saying people ought not to form their respective opinions, I'm just giving my own and my reasons.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I don't think the two theories are the same, because they're not.
> 
> What I am saying is that both theories are essentially based on the same foundational research that Jung provided. Insofar as this is the case, they ought to - and do - have a lot in common. In my opinion, they have more in common than they differ on. While Socionics introduces the theory of information metabolism to substantiate cognitive functions as "information elements", MBTI incorporates much of the research behind the Big 5 and other trait theories into substantiating it's 4 dichotomies. In this, the two diverge and go almost opposite directions. However, this divergence is, in my opinion, greatly exaggerated by enthusiasts on both sides due to personal biases.


Ah okay. Well how I see it, the basic dichotomies are mostly the same (with the exception of I/E maybe?) but some of the functions somehow end up totally differently (maybe due to different I/E...). So to me they are pretty different.


----------



## Rodrigo Blanco (May 28, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> I don't think the two theories are the same, because they're not.
> 
> What I am saying is that both theories are essentially based on the same foundational research that Jung provided. Insofar as this is the case, they ought to - and do - have a lot in common. In my opinion, they have more in common than they differ on. While Socionics introduces the theory of information metabolism to substantiate cognitive functions as "information elements", MBTI incorporates much of the research behind the Big 5 and other trait theories into substantiating it's 4 dichotomies. In this, the two diverge and go almost opposite directions. However, *this divergence is, in my opinion, greatly exaggerated by enthusiasts on both sides due to strong personal biases.*
> 
> Obviously I can't do much to substantiate my take on the whole situation, but that's just how it comes across to me after all the research I've done. I'm not even saying people ought not to form their respective opinions, I'm just giving my own and my reasons.


I agree with your statement, but you have the complete opposite as well stating that they're exactly the same and that people getting different things from both are essentially lying or mistyping etc etc.. Neither extreme is helpful IMO.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Rodrigo Blanco said:


> I agree with your statement, but you have the complete opposite as well stating that they're exactly the same and that people getting different things from both are essentially lying or mistyping etc etc.. Neither extreme is helpful IMO.


Nowhere did I say they were exactly the same. Nor did I say anyone is lying.


----------



## Rodrigo Blanco (May 28, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> Nowhere did I say they were exactly the same. Nor did I say anyone is lying.


I wasn't talking about you specifically, but you have people saying that here and in many other MBTI & socionics forums. Thus the need IMO for people to be clear when discussing these things.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Rodrigo Blanco said:


> I wasn't talking about you specifically, but you have people saying that here and in many other MBTI & socionics forums. Thus the need IMO for people to be clear when discussing these things.


My mistake. From your grammar I thought that was directed at me, but now I see what you meant. I haven't run into anyone like you're describing yet, but if and/or when I do, I'll be letting them know why that's bullshit. The two models are very different. Just not _night and day_ different the way extremist enthusiasts try to make it seem. They have more in common than they differ over.

In fact, sharing a lot of common ground with MBTI (as well as other models) is precisely what lends a lot of validity and reliability to the Socionics model. There is over 50 years of quantitative research supporting the traits associated with each of the 4 MBTI dichotomies, much of which is corroborated by other widely accepted models as well, such as the Big 5, and the MMPI. Most of those traits also correspond with the 4 "jungian" dichotomies of Socionics, which was the original basis of Socionics envisioned by Augusta.


----------

