# Socionics Type via Buzzwords (Quiz sort of)



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

It's been a while since I've tried tackling any of this but I'll get into that later.

I made a basic table based on what how I'm interpreting Socionics at the moment. I'm wondering if this relates to anyone else.

Simply start left choosing a group of words that you connect with or personify you the most and see if you get your type.












Sources: 
Information elements | School of System Socionics
Socionics - the16types.info - Aspects Semantics (Prokofieva)

My guess is the four types you end up surrounded by (dual, kindred, semi-dual) will still feel like a nice group despite being not being your quadra.

Now for a bit of rambling...

I never got around to finishing what I said I would do (a personality table with fictional examples, improved test) was because I'm still testing the validity of the system. I wasn't sure fictional characters would be possible so I thought I'd try with real people and the puzzle still doesn't quite fit together so well based on what I've learned. It still doesn't feel like anyone has gotten to the root of a type and things like extroversion definitely become too apparent in type descriptions... and what good is the system if you can't describe the people in it. Gulenko's DCNH system, temperaments and descriptions all seem to trip over each other in my understanding.

Anyone relate to this any?


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

I got ENTp. 

My actual type is INTj. 

The first question, I thought it was sorting by quadra.


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

Interesting so far... now I'm extra curious as to whether or not someone actually identifies with the other three sets. The words don't seem very appealing to me but I'm guessing they're not supposed to.


----------



## pivot_turn (Dec 10, 2014)

I got ISFp. And that's what I've ended up so far as typing myself as, with some doubts because I'm ISFP in MBTI, and well Si-Fe vs Fi-Se and stuff...


----------



## Doran Seth (Apr 4, 2015)

I'm new to Socionics, and by new I mean I finished the test for the first time about 10 minutes ago. Using your chart I landed on the type I got as my test result: INTp. 

In the second column, systems and passion really spoke to me which would have led me to different types, but for some reason knowledge and love/hate appealed to me a bit more. All the other columns were super easy for me to choose from.


----------



## raminan (Jun 20, 2014)

pivot_turn said:


> I got ISFp. And that's what I've ended up so far as typing myself as, with some doubts because I'm ISFP in MBTI, and well Si-Fe vs Fi-Se and stuff...


from what I know, socionic's ISFp is Myers Briggs' ISFJ. Cmiiw


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

raminan said:


> from what I know, socionic's ISFp is Myers Briggs' ISFJ. Cmiiw


Really? How so?

As I wrote, MBTI J/P correlates to Socio Static/Dynamic and changes from an extrovert to introvert because E = -I hence an ESFJ being a dynamic while an ISFJ being a static. With this in mind, MBTI ISFJ would indeed correlate with ESI, that is ISFj. Then there is the question of descriptions in which area the correlation is also suspiciously high. Finally, because Se(m) != Se(s) (likewise for Si), the questions presents itself: what really corellates with what?

Corrolary: I'm both an ISFJ and ESI, no matter what anyone would tell you. Unless they DRASTICALLY rewrite ISFP description, I highly doubt I'd be that. Then there's the problem of Dynamics...


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

INTj/LII, which is what I've been typing as lately.


----------



## pivot_turn (Dec 10, 2014)

raminan said:


> from what I know, socionic's ISFp is Myers Briggs' ISFJ. Cmiiw


That's what I meant, that I have doubts about my type because the functions/information elements don't really match with ISFp and ISFP. On the other hand they do sound pretty similar in the end. 



Ixim said:


> Really? How so?
> 
> As I wrote, MBTI J/P correlates to Socio Static/Dynamic and changes from an extrovert to introvert because E = -I hence an ESFJ being a dynamic while an ISFJ being a static. With this in mind, MBTI ISFJ would indeed correlate with ESI, that is ISFj. Then there is the question of descriptions in which area the correlation is also suspiciously high. Finally, because Se(m) != Se(s) (likewise for Si), the questions presents itself: what really corellates with what?
> 
> Corrolary: I'm both an ISFJ and ESI, no matter what anyone would tell you. Unless they DRASTICALLY rewrite ISFP description, I highly doubt I'd be that. Then there's the problem of Dynamics...


If I read your post right, I agree with you (getting a bit lost in seeing the terms of both systems at the same time).

Yes I think as even though I also end up typing as SEI while looking at information elements in different function placements, I could look through a bit of that and think that, okay maybe it works, especially as I can quite relate to Fi in a high position in socionics as well. But I can't explain away the fact that the dichotomies (Reinins and what there is) in socionics just don't work for me with ESI. I relate to most of the dichotomies of SEI of all of the types, though I'm not quite sure about which way I go with all dichotomies, and SEE even works better for me than ESI. So for me it seems like socionics has moved so much in different directions from MBTI that you can't always say that X = Y between the systems, even though they have the same origins.

Edit: Just had to add that my above statements may seem a bit contradictory. I mean I have doubts yes, because people keep saying that things should work between the systems, but then I don't really see how they would always work, so I go back and forth in my thoughts in this, and this is why I haven't really gotten that much into socionics, because I can't always work with the differences in them while they are similar. Plus the fact that a lot of the information is translated from Russian (and some other languages too maybe), and the translations aren't always good, which annoys me.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

I liked the INTj (mbti INTP) words the best.


I think "power", "fortune", and "force" are words that don't describe INTp very well at all. 


ENTj, on the other hand. . .


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

pivot_turn said:


> That's what I meant, that I have doubts about my type because the functions/information elements don't really match with ISFp and ISFP. On the other hand they do sound pretty similar in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To understand what I said requires the ability to almost hold two thoughts in the same time. A rare ability if any. To understand mechanics, ofc!

The gist being: so you're an ISF, good. Dynamic or Static?


----------



## pivot_turn (Dec 10, 2014)

Ixim said:


> To understand what I said requires the ability to almost hold two thoughts in the same time. A rare ability if any. To understand mechanics, ofc!
> 
> The gist being: so you're an ISF, good. Dynamic or Static?


According to my notes I'm thinking dynamic. So that makes ISFp, right? And in quadras I always end up thinking that Alpha sounds most right.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

pivot_turn said:


> According to my notes I'm thinking dynamic. So that makes ISFp, right? And in quadras I always end up thinking that Alpha sounds most right.


I am not dynamic. So yes, Dynamic ISF would be what you'd call a SiFe-Alpha quadra. Indeed it is so. How does MBTI ISFP description sound to you? Ignore the functions.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I can't even do this, it's so vague. ENTp? ISFp? I don't know, none of them really sound right.


----------



## pivot_turn (Dec 10, 2014)

Ixim said:


> I am not dynamic. So yes, Dynamic ISF would be what you'd call a SiFe-Alpha quadra. Indeed it is so. How does MBTI ISFP description sound to you? Ignore the functions.


I've always related to MBTI ISFP descriptions, though also to some extent to some others. I just took the time to read through some descriptions of both ISFP and ISFJ and I definitely relate more to ISFP. There's a lot similarity between the descriptions of those two, but usually when it differs I feel like ISFP gets closer to the truth. And by now I'm starting to be at least somewhat confident in my typing as ISFP in MBTI. If looking at dichotomies there, S/N is usually the one that's more unclear, but now I'm pretty sure I'm a sensor. 

And sorry, I'm not meaning to derail the thread.

Edit: :laughing: I just heard Coldplay's High Speed in the background and instead of hearing "confidence in high speed" I heard "confidence in ISP". Must be a sign.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

pivot_turn said:


> I've always related to MBTI ISFP descriptions, though also to some extent to some others. I just took the time to read through some descriptions of both ISFP and ISFJ and I definitely relate more to ISFP. There's a lot similarity between the descriptions of those two, but usually when it differs I feel like ISFP gets closer to the truth. And by now I'm starting to be at least somewhat confident in my typing as ISFP in MBTI. If looking at dichotomies there, S/N is usually the one that's more unclear, but now I'm pretty sure I'm a sensor.
> 
> And sorry, I'm not meaning to derail the thread.
> 
> Edit: :laughing: I just heard Coldplay's High Speed in the background and instead of hearing "confidence in high speed" I heard "confidence in ISP". Must be a sign.


Let the pieces fall into place. Feel how glorious it is! My dear ISFP!


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> I can't even do this, it's so vague. ENTp? ISFp? I don't know, none of them really sound right.


Of course you can't because there isn't any logic to be found. And that's too much for you. It's ok, the same happens to me when an Ne dominant starts talking. The "wut?" effect right?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Too ambiguous...
At first I ended up with ESTp, then INTp and ENFj.


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

emberfly said:


> I liked the INTj (mbti INTP) words the best.
> 
> I think "power", "fortune", and "force" are words that don't describe INTp very well at all.
> 
> ENTj, on the other hand. . .


The word pairings are meant to be appealing rather than simply describe that type. Words along these lines are often associated with Se/Ni and I'm just seeing where they land.


Silveresque said:


> I can't even do this, it's so vague. ENTp? ISFp? I don't know, none of them really sound right.


Ya know I never considered this could come off as vague. That's very interesting. I'll edit it later.


To_august said:


> Too ambiguous...
> At first I ended up with ESTp, then INTp and ENFj.


Yeah I'll work on the ambiguity, but there is a connection between those 3. They all value Ni/Se.


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

Well here's version 2. I unfortunately couldn't update the original post.


I replaced a few redundant word choices and got a tad bit more specific. I don't think I can get any more detailed than this without mixing in too much of own interpretation of things.








Looking at this I can see a much deeper line is drawn between the INTx and INFx but I'm skeptical about how accurate the Se/Ni column is.


----------



## Harizu (Apr 27, 2014)

I am ISTp according to this.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I would be ENTp or INTj according to the revised version. Anyone can see potential, that isn't the same thing as perception via Intuition. 

I honestly think the association of Se with "force" is unrealistic. Yeah, I totally go around forcing people to do things. Not to say that I'm anti-force, which I'm not, but what could I even need to use it for? How many normal, realistic, everyday situations actually involve force? Maybe if you're a police officer, or a school bully, or if you're just a really belligerent person for some reason. 

But I mean, take my typical day, for example. I wake up, browse the forum, make lunch, run errands or listen to music, do homework, make dinner, go to class, come home and sleep. What would I possibly need "force" for in my life? 

Maybe if I were an extravert, I'd be more active and social and exposed to more situations in which force would be useful. 

But even so, what does force have to do with actual Sensing as Jung defined it? Sensation establishes what is actually present. It's conscious, concrete reality level perception, as opposed to perception via unconscious associations which tells us possibilities as to where things came from and where they are going. 

Do I need "force" to establish what is actually present? Of course not. I don't believe Se is necessarily about force at all, not to say that there aren't plenty of forceful Se types.


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> I would be ENTp or INTj according to the revised version. Anyone can see potential, that isn't the same thing as perception via Intuition.
> 
> I honestly think the association of Se with "force" is unrealistic.


I'm certain all of those words could apply to a single person. It's really a question of how much.



While I too am skeptical of the Socionics version of Se, it seems force in their terms really applies to control, whether it be of yourself, others, or your environment, rather than only pushing others around. I assume Socionics tries to capture manifestations of functions rather than get down to a core level such as that. I wonder how much model A itself comes into play when describing a function considering valuing one function implies disregarding another.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

TheGrayInk said:


> I'm certain all of those words could apply to a single person. It's really a question of how much.
> 
> 
> 
> While I too am skeptical of the Socionics version of Se, it seems force in their terms really applies to control, whether it be of yourself, others, or your environment, rather than only pushing others around. I assume Socionics tries to capture manifestations of functions rather than get down to a core level such as that. I wonder how much model A itself comes into play when describing a function considering valuing one function implies disregarding another.


Controlling the environment sounds like Je, if anything. Controlling yourself sounds like the concept of superego (in psychology, not socionics) which is present in everyone. Neither of these things has anything to do with Sensing, so how could they be Se? 

It's not a matter of how much certain buzzwords apply. There really is no substitute for understanding the four basic functions (Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition) which the 8 cognitive functions are by definition rooted in. And if you understand these, buzzwords become pointless.

Buzzwords are not equivalent to functions, and no matter how many buzzwords you come up with for a particular function, it's never going to be the same as the actual definitional essence of what that function is. 

If you want to know what a firefighter is, for instance, are you going to start describing things you associate with it? Can you then say that being a firefighter is about danger and bravery, and that anyone who identifies with those words is a firefighter? No, that would be obviously incorrect, because a firefighter by definition is someone who fights fires, and those words are only related if they occur within the context of fighting fires.


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> Controlling the environment sounds like Je, if anything. Controlling yourself sounds like the concept of superego (in psychology, not socionics) which is present in everyone. Neither of these things has anything to do with Sensing, so how could they be Se?




When I said controller the environment, I mean't feeling in control of what's going on around you, and controlling yourself as in not letting others control you. Regardless that's all my interpretation, and there's a lot left up to interpretation here. Do they sound exactly like sensing as you say Jung described it, don't know, don't care, it either fits or it doesn't.


Nobody claimed Buzzwords were equivalent to functions. Buzzwords just seem to be a nice alternative to textbook jargon. If the functions were so infalable, word associations wouldn't be necessary.


If you're up to it, please write out exactly what each function is, or post a link to the correct description of the cognitive functions.


As for the fire fighter argument, does that also imply anyone that goes and picks up a fire extinguisher to extinguish a fire by definition is a fire fighter? Working from the bottom can be just as vague as working from the top.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

TheGrayInk said:


> When I said controller the environment, I mean't feeling in control of what's going on around you, and controlling yourself as in not letting others control you. Regardless that's all my interpretation, and there's a lot left up to interpretation here. Do they sound exactly like sensing as you say Jung described it, don't know, don't care, it either fits or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> Nobody claimed Buzzwords were equivalent to functions. Buzzwords just seem to be a nice alternative to textbook jargon. If the functions were so infalable, word associations wouldn't be necessary.
> ...


There are no correct descriptions, only correct definitions. Type can manifest in any way, as long as the definitions are met. The socionics definitions have to be understood within the context of the four functions as defined by Jung.



> _Under sensation I include all perceptions by means of the sense organs; by thinking, I mean the function of intellectual cognition and the forming of logical conclusions; feeling is a function of subjective evaluation; intuition I take as perception by way of the unconscious, or perception of unconscious events. (Psychological Types, p. 518)_





> _Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation._





> The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on. the part of the object had to be continually frustrated. The extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance must always be paramount.





> (static) perceives outward sensory data projected by objects. Unless objects change their appearance significantly, the  impression will not change.
> (dynamic) perceives internal reactions to sensory data. Each perception of the same thing can be different depending on the observer's changing internal state.
> (static) perceives inherent potential in objects. Objects don't tend to change their nature much over time, though new circumstances can reveal hitherto unnoticed aspects of that potentiality.
> (dynamic) perceives internal reactions to external potentiality. Today the possibilities might seem inviting and favorable, but tomorrow they might produce a sense of foreboding or despondency.
> ...





TheGrayInk said:


> As for the fire fighter argument, does that also imply anyone that goes and picks up a fire extinguisher to extinguish a fire by definition is a fire fighter? Working from the bottom can be just as vague as working from the top.


_Firefighter
__ noun __ 1.__ a person who fights destructive fires. _

No because the wording of the definition implies an ongoing tendency, not just one instance.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

TheGrayInk said:


> Yeah I'll work on the ambiguity, but there is a connection between those 3. They all value Ni/Se.


I lean Si/Ne valuing though.

I believe you mixed up pairings for INFj. It should be Building Relationships/Seeing Potential, not Utilizing Time.

In a revised version I can't even go past the first stage, since I relate to several statements in the block and can't relate to other ones in the same one. I'll try to do this differently and assign them value of 1 through 10.

_Stage 1:_

* *




Seeing Potential - sort of - *3*
Enjoying Comfort - I enjoy psychological comfort, too bad I almost forgot it feels. Physical comfort isn't top priority for me on the other hand, so unsure what to assign. Let it be medium - *5*
Staying Original - kind of important - *7*
Striving for Harmony - with what? with whom? what kind of harmony? If it harmony and consistency of thoughts/ideas I scored it high, if body harmony it would be low. Let it be medium as well - *5*
Finding the Essence - ambiguous. Again, only my interpretation, as getting to the bottom of things - *9* 
Seeing Beauty - *6*
Being Insightful - *8*
Feeling Healthy - as if somebody wants to feel sick and unhealthy. lol. I understand though that it has to be permanent conscious control over body issues and health tracking, hence - *4*
*Total: 47*

Creating Structure - *8*
Emotional Release - not really - *2*
Keeping Consistency - yep - *9*
Staying Passionate - depends on the meaning. Passionate towards my goals and interests - absolutely. If passionate in general towards everything around and people - not at all. Let it be medium then - *5* 
Systemizing Clutter - *9*
Finding Inspiration - *8*
Utilizing Algorithms - as in meaning of utilizing operating procedures in order to get certain predictable result - *9*
Creating Excitement - nope - *0*
*Total: 50*

Utilizing Force - I sort of have to - *4*
Tracking Events - *8*
Staying Disciplined - it's not a conscious process though. I just am disciplined. Ennea 1 probably has a say in it - *9*
Predicting Outcome - *8*
Building Power - not really - *1*
Utilizing Time - erm, of course I do. Some people are better with time management than the other ones, but overall time is a crucial and fundamental part of the existence. I don't know how someone could _not _utilize it - *10*
Exerting Will - I sort of have to - *4*
Creating Fortune - "fortune" as "money"? Not really - *2
Total: 46*

Working with Objects - *8*
Building Relationships - I suck at this thing - *2*
Following Procedures - if procedures meant as operating ones that used in order to get certain predictable result - *9*
Deep Love/Hate - Don't really have deep seated love and hate agenda. Let it be - *4*
Acquiring Knowledge - yes! - *10*
Seeing the Good/Bad - I see distinction between the two and can apply this knowledge to situations, but I don't judge them in this terms. Ethical situation - good/bad or write/wrong - could be judged like that, but otherwise no - *5*
Staying Efficient - yep - *9*
Strong Feelings - *2*
*Total: 49*


_Stage 2:
_
* *




Keeping Consistency - *9*
Staying Passionate - *5* 
Systemizing Clutter - *9
*Creating Excitement - *0
23

*Staying Efficient - *9*
Deep Love/Hate - *4
*Acquiring Knowledge - *10*
Strong Feelings - *2
25

*Utilizing Force - *4*
Utilizing Time - *10
*Building Power - *1*
Exerting Will - *4
19

*Seeing Potential - *3
*Enjoying Comfort - *5
*Being Insightful - *8
*Striving for Harmony - *5*
*21*

Staying Efficient - *9
*Deep Love/Hate - *4
*Acquiring Knowledge - *10*
Strong Feelings - *2
25

*Keeping Consistency - *9*
Staying Passionate - *5* 
Systemizing Clutter - *9
*Creating Excitement - *0*
*23*

Seeing Potential - *3
*Enjoying Comfort *- 5
*Being Insightful - *8
*Striving for Harmony - *5
21

*Utilizing Force - *4*
Utilizing Time - *10
*Building Power - *1*
Exerting Will - *4
19*


_Stage 3:
_
* *




Seeing Potential - *3
*Creating Structure - *8
11
*
Enjoying Comfort *- 5
*Staying Passionate - *5* 
*10

*Seeing Potential - *3
*Building Relationships - *2
5

*Enjoying Comfort *- 5
*Staying Efficient - *9
14

*Staying Passionate - *5* 
Utilizing Time - *10
15

*Creating Structure - *8
*Utilizing Force - *4
12

*Staying Passionate - *5* 
Enjoying Comfort *- 5
10

*Creating Structure - *8
*Seeing Potential - *3
11

*Utilizing Force - *4
*Building Relationships - *2
6

*Utilizing Time - *10
*Staying Efficient - *9
19

*Utilizing Force - *4
*Creating Structure - *8
12

*Utilizing Time - *10
*Staying Passionate - *5* 
*15*

Staying Efficient - *9
*Enjoying Comfort *- 5
14

*Building Relationships - *2
*Seeing Potential - *3
**5

*Staying Efficient - *9
*Utilizing Time - *10
**19

*Building Relationships - I suck at this thing - *2
*Utilizing Force - *4
6*


_Sum total:
_
* *




ENTp: 47+23+11=81
ISFp: 47+23+10=80
ENFP: 47+25+5=77
ISTp: 47+25+14=86
ENFj: 50+19+15=84
ISTj: 50+19+12=81
ESFj: 50+21+10=81
INTj: 50+21+11=82
ESFp: 46+25+6=77
INTp: 46+25+19=90
ESTp: 46+23+12=81
INFp: 46+23+15=84
ESTj: 49+21+14=84
INFj: 49+21+5=75
ENTj: 49+19+19=87
ISFj: 49+19+6=74



_Final Results:_
INTp - 90
ENTj - 87
ISTp - 86
ENFj - 84
INFp - 84
ESTj - 84
INTj - 82
ENTp - 81
ESTp - 81
ISTj - 81
ESFj - 81
ISFp - 80
ENFP - 77
ESFp - 77
INFj - 75
ISFj - 74

Edit: interesting to note that type with the highest score belongs to the group that got the lowest points at the 1st stage.


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> There are no correct descriptions, only correct definitions. Type can manifest in any way, as long as the definitions are met. The socionics definitions have to be understood within the context of the four functions as defined by Jung.


So you're taking the static and dynamic parts of the description and using it as a baseline for the entire thing. Okay, let's say this is the crux of it... how is this the key to typing yourself, especially considering as a rule you use all 8 of the functions! Whose going to look at "I perceive outward sensory data projected by object" and think OH that's me I do that all the time, I must be Se. You'd need a skill based test to check for this.


Silveresque said:


> Firefighter
> noun 1. a person who fights destructive fires.
> No because the wording of the definition implies an ongoing tendency, not just one instance.


Okay let's say I work at a lab and I'm working in a scenario where "destructive fires" occur and I frequently need to extinguish fires. Would I still call myself a fire fighter? Seems like a rather subjective thing at that point.



To_august said:


> I lean Si/Ne valuing though.
> I believe you mixed up pairings for INFj. It should be Building Relationships/Seeing Potential, not Utilizing Time.
> In a revised version I can't even go past the first stage, since I relate to several statements in the block and can't relate to other ones in the same one. I'll try to do this differently and assign them value of 1 through 10.


Wow, that was very detailed! And YEP Screwed up there, mind the typos. : )
I'll note, I'm completely open to the idea that the test is flawed as well as Socionics terms.

Well if I break the first column down by function association alone I get this.
Ni 28 (8+8+10+2)
Ne 27 (3+7+9+8)
Fi 13 (2+4+5+2)
Fe 15 (2+5+8+0)
Ti 35 (8+9+9+9)
Te 36 (8+9+10+9)
Si 20 (5+5+6+4)
Se 18 (4+9+1+4)

Which would imply NT, toss N out the window and it breaks down to LIx.
I actually caught another typo on the second set. I used too many Se elements on accident. I probably would've replaced building power with tracking events or predicting outcomes which would've bumped that number up to 26 (23 if I replaced others), putting it over the Si/Ne box as well as put ENTj over INTp on the final result. 

So as far as the test goes, I think ENTj would seem pretty favorable.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

TheGrayInk said:


> So you're taking the static and dynamic parts of the description and using it as a baseline for the entire thing. Okay, let's say this is the crux of it... how is this the key to typing yourself, especially considering as a rule you use all 8 of the functions! Whose going to look at "I perceive outward sensory data projected by object" and think OH that's me I do that all the time, I must be Se. You'd need a skill based test to check for this.


I posted those definitions because they seem to be the only pure definitions I've found so far from socionics, and they seem compatible with Jung. They also do a good job of showing how the static/dynamic dichotomy influences the nature of the functions.

Merely reading the definitions isn't the same as understanding them. And of course merely perceiving "outward sensory data projected by the object" does not make someone an Se type. There would have to be a natural preference for Sensation over Intuition. 

But you don't seem to be receptive to this way of understanding type, so I'm not inclined to say more.



> Okay let's say I work at a lab and I'm working in a scenario where "destructive fires" occur and I frequently need to extinguish fires. Would I still call myself a fire fighter? Seems like a rather subjective thing at that point.


By that definition, yes. The only subjective thing is whether you choose to adhere to the definitions. 

However, with a bit of patience you may find that another definition (Merriam-Webster) adds more specificity:

_firefighter
noun fire·fight·er \-ˌfī-tər\

: a member of a group that works to put out fires_


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> I posted those definitions because they seem to be the only pure definitions I've found so far from socionics, and they seem compatible with Jung. They also do a good job of showing how the static/dynamic dichotomy influences the nature of the functions.
> ---
> But you don't seem to be receptive to this way of understanding type, so I'm not inclined to say more.


I can agree with that. I'm not choosing sides here. The goal was to see if the words applied to people, nothing more. So far it looks like they don't, so either the test is flawed, or Socionics is flawed in its interpretation.



> By that definition, yes. The only subjective thing is whether you choose to adhere to the definitions.
> 
> However, with a bit of patience you may find that another definition (Merriam-Webster) adds more specificity:
> firefighter
> ...


I could probably nit-pick this one too but I'm just going to leave it alone. : )


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

TheGrayInk said:


> Wow, that was very detailed! And YEP Screwed up there, mind the typos. : )
> I'll note, I'm completely open to the idea that the test is flawed as well as Socionics terms.
> 
> Well if I break the first column down by function association alone I get this.
> ...


I've been wondering about being Te base as well. It solves my dilemma concerning feeling myself a rational type (I clearly relate to rational dichotomy), but I can't seem to force myself to admit that I'm extraverted dominant type. 

Extraversion doesn't make sense to me not only because I relate to introversion in layman's terms. As wikisocion delineates it - extraversion is not about being socially outgoing and preferring intense social interaction, but whether individual is inclined to take initiative in establishing the social interaction. I'm taking like zero initiative in establishing the latter and prefer others to take initiative in this realm. So, my ongoing doubt continues.


----------



## TheGrayInk (Aug 21, 2012)

To_august said:


> I've been wondering about being Te base as well. It solves my dilemma concerning feeling myself a rational type (I clearly relate to rational dichotomy), but I can't seem to force myself to admit that I'm extraverted dominant type.


Yeah the Extroversion/Introversion thing trips me up, which is why I avoided it. They say your type doesn't change, however I was very social when I was younger but now not much at all. This leads me to think social interaction/initiatve has absolutely nothing to do with it. Besides even if you're doing something like watching a movie at home by yourself or browsing the internet wouldn't you still be engaging extraverted cognitive functions? I know humans are supposedly social creatures but are people really a prerequisite, especially in this day and age?

I came to the conclusion of ENTp using model A and asking myself what am I really awkward with, Fi or Se and which would I never tire of, Si or Fe. It's a pretty simple method but it all seems to line up quite well.


----------

