# SOCIONIC vs MBTI's Functions: succinct



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

*MBTI summary

*


> *
> Si vs. Ni: a focused sensory experience comparing the present and the past more frequently vs. a convergent "intuition" perception function producing a singular and comprehensive vision and experience
> 
> Se vs. Ne: a broadly sensory experience in touch with the present, direct environment vs. divergent "intuition" experience acquiring numerous possibilities
> ...


sources: Personality Junkie | The Eight Functions*

SOCIONICS summary
*


> *Si vs. Ni: a focus on one's environment and how it's affecting one's physical state vs. a focus on a situation's development over time and other underlying meanings
> 
> Se vs. Ne: active acquisition, control, and organization of visible territory and objects vs. active search for and development of invisible potential and emerging situations
> *
> ...


sources: Functions - Wikisocion


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> *vs. divergent "intuition" experience acquiring numerous*


end of sentence missing?

Also title of thread. Socionics, not socionic


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> end of sentence missing?
> 
> Also title of thread. Socionics, not socionic


They won't let the title be corrected once the thread has been published, anyway I hate I struggle to notice the little mistakes I make.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

What I can't seem to understand is why people separate everything instead of fusing them. In other words both mbti and socionics comes from JCF, that means both the makers of mbti and socionics had to have read the cognitive function theory written by Jung himself. They both came out with two different interpretations, now this is where the problem comes in, why is that people think that either MBTI or Socionics has to be right when they can be two different pieces to the puzzle. Meaning in other words, if MBTI interpreted JCF, whats not to say they only saw it from their perspective which was only a part of the truth, while Socionics interpreted JCF from a different perspective which was another part of the same truth. Which would help in getting more of a well rounded global meaning of JCF in its entirety. I just dislike how linear some peoples thoughts are on this subject.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> What I can't seem to understand is why people separate everything instead of fusing them. In other words both mbti and socionics comes from JCF, that means both the makers of mbti and socionics had to have read the cognitive function theory written by Jung himself. They both came out with two different interpretations, now this is where the problem comes in, why is that people think that either MBTI or Socionics has to be right when they can be two different pieces to the puzzle. Meaning in other words, if MBTI interpreted JCF, whats not to say they only saw it from their perspective which was only a part of the truth, while Socionics interpreted JCF from a different perspective which was another part of the same truth. Which would help in getting more of a well rounded global meaning of JCF in its entirety. I just dislike how linear some peoples thoughts are on this subject.










Duck tape engineering? mmmm??
The two divergent systems aren't answers to everything but merging them is difficult since you end up creating your own one (making that a standard isn't easy).


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> View attachment 47562
> 
> Duck tape engineering? mmmm??
> The two divergent systems aren't answers to everything but merging them is difficult since you end up creating your own one (making that a standard isn't easy).


But its logical, both systems have the same fundamentals, JCF. I've studied Jugs notes myself, so its easy to see where the two different interpretations could have came from. You're right, it wouldn't be the answer to someones psych, considering JCF isn't all the answers to someone's psych, but they do give you more of an understanding abut JCF just from two different perspectives. So therefore it is logical that both systems, which share the same origin (JCF), can be two pieces of a puzzle which would only help in expanding an individuals all around knowledge of JCF by showing them two different interpretations of the same system. In other words, its logical to see mbti cognitive functions and socionics cognitive functions just two different parts of a whole definition of JCF, they're like two different analogies of the same system.


----------



## Cheeseumpuffs (Apr 6, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> The two divergent systems aren't answers to everything but merging them is difficult since you end up creating your own one (making that a standard isn't easy).


Reminds me of this:








But yeah, trying to fuse the two would mean necessary compromise and loss of some features for each system which wouldn't sit well for strong believers in one over the other.

I agree, the way people cling to and argue their systems is a bit silly but there's not much you can really do about it.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> But its logical, both systems have the same fundamentals, JCF. I've studied Jugs notes myself, so its easy to see where the two different interpretations could have came from. You're right, it wouldn't be the answer to someones psych, considering JCF isn't all the answers to someone's psych, but they do give you more of an understanding abut JCF just from two different perspectives. So therefore it is logical that both systems, which share the same origin (JCF), can be two pieces of a puzzle which would only help in expanding an individuals all around knowledge of JCF by showing them two different interpretations of the same system. In other words, its logical to see mbti cognitive functions and socionics cognitive functions just two different parts of a whole definition of JCF, they're like two different analogies of the same system.


I'm not discrediting you though I'm saying explicitly stating that merging them would mean discarding the elements from the two you'd consider redundant. Apparently they aren't 100% compatible though they share great similarities.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> I'm not discrediting you though I'm saying explicitly stating that merging them would mean discarding the elements from the two you'd consider redundant. Apparently they aren't 100% compatible though they share great similarities.





> Reminds me of this:
> 
> 
> But yeah, trying to fuse the two would mean necessary compromise and loss of some features for each system which wouldn't sit well for strong believers in one over the other.
> ...


Maybe it's just me and my crazy drive to figure out the "real" objective truth of everything even in the subjective things, but isn't the reason we are all here on this site to figure out our true personality? So wouldn't that mean that we would have to search for it and understand that if we're using two system with the same fundamentals but different interpretations that we would have to fuse them to get to the higher truth? 

I understand that Socionics has their own ways separate from mbti, such as socionics putting the functions by ego, Id, super ego and so on, while mbti puts them in by dom, auxiliary, devilish and so on, but that doesn't mean that the fundamentals are different, because the fundamentals come from the same place. That's like both of us (for this example I'll be Socionics, and one of you will be MBTI, while Jung is the teacher) reading a book and we're told to interpret the book, I come out with what I think the book means, while one of you come out with your own interpretation with what the book means, and the teacher (Jung) goes "hey, both of you are correct", so by combining both of what we said we can get to the higher truth of the underlying meaning of the book. That's how interpretations work if they're both right, it's only logical. From there on the systems can add their own things but the fundamentals still stay the same, just different interpretations of the same thing. 

This isn't about whose right and how some people "feel" that the systems are different, this is about finding our true personality, finding the logic in it all, finding the higher truth. Not sticking so rigidly to your own beliefs because of how you "feel", it only hurts looking for the truth, and I had the idea that we were all here looking for the truth.


----------



## Cheeseumpuffs (Apr 6, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> isn't the reason we are all here on this site to figure out our true personality? . . .
> This isn't about whose right and how some people "feel" that the systems are different, this is about finding our true personality, finding the logic in it all, finding the higher truth. Not sticking so rigidly to your own beliefs because of how you "feel", it only hurts looking for the truth, and I had the idea that we were all here looking for the truth.


Yes, most people are looking to find themselves, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to fall into some system and understand who they are based off of a 3/4 letter label. Simply knowing to yourself who you are and how you fit in to the world around you isn't dependent on the accuracy of some system, but on yourself and how you recognize your qualities and weaknesses.

There is nothing wrong with looking for an objective approach to it, but saying that a fused system will lead people to their "true" personalities better than either MBTI or Socionics is no more accurate than saying orange is a better color than red or yellow, respectively. Everyone has different experiences and such and some external system will never be perfect at telling anyone and everyone who they really are.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> Maybe it's just me and my crazy drive to figure out the "real" objective truth of everything even in the subjective things, but isn't the reason we are all here on this site to figure out our true personality? So wouldn't that mean that we would have to search for it and understand that if we're using two system with the same fundamentals but different interpretations that we would have to fuse them to get to the higher truth?
> 
> I understand that Socionics has their own ways separate from mbti, such as socionics putting the functions by ego, Id, super ego and so on, while mbti puts them in by dom, auxiliary, devilish and so on, but that doesn't mean that the fundamentals are different, because the fundamentals come from the same place. That's like both of us (for this example I'll be Socionics, and one of you will be MBTI, while Jung is the teacher) reading a book and we're told to interpret the book, I come out with what I think the book means, while one of you come out with your own interpretation with what the book means, and the teacher (Jung) goes "hey, both of you are correct", so by combining both of what we said we can get to the higher truth of the underlying meaning of the book. That's how interpretations work if they're both right, it's only logical. From there on the systems can add their own things but the fundamentals still stay the same, just different interpretations of the same thing.
> 
> This isn't about whose right and how some people "feel" that the systems are different, this is about finding our true personality, finding the logic in it all, finding the higher truth. Not sticking so rigidly to your own beliefs because of how you "feel", it only hurts looking for the truth, and I had the idea that we were all here looking for the truth.


Yes the answer always lies in the self, such all encompassing truth always remains "subjective" especially since its impossible to achieve maximum understanding. Anyway its like I'm just trolling you towards the end, but what you are saying doesn't stem too far from common sense.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Cheeseumpuffs said:


> Yes, most people are looking to find themselves, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to fall into some system and understand who they are based off of a 3/4 letter label. Simply knowing to yourself who you are and how you fit in to the world around you isn't dependent on the accuracy of some system, but on yourself and how you recognize your qualities and weaknesses.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with looking for an objective approach to it, but saying that a fused system will lead people to their "true" personalities better than either MBTI or Socionics is no more accurate than saying orange is a better color than red or yellow, respectively. Everyone has different experiences and such and some external system will never be perfect at telling anyone and everyone who they really are.


You're right about that all the way, neither of these systems along with JCF could ever tell a persons full psych, but never the less these two systems have the same fundamentals, so when looking for your type or how your psych works under the JCF group of systems, it's best to correlate them using their shared fundamentals to find your true personality in the JCF realm. Not saying you will find all your answers in the JCF realm because it doesn't cover all of your psych, but since these two systems share the same fundamentals then finding your true type using JCF it's to correlate instead of separate the two.



> Yes the answer always lies in the self, such all encompassing truth always remains "subjective" especially since its impossible to achieve maximum understanding. Anyway its like I'm just trolling you towards the end, but what you are saying doesn't stem too far from common sense.


I don't consider it trolling, you're expressing your thoughts which I agree with.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> What I can't seem to understand is why people separate everything instead of fusing them. In other words both mbti and socionics comes from JCF, that means both the makers of mbti and socionics had to have read the cognitive function theory written by Jung himself. They both came out with two different interpretations, now this is where the problem comes in, why is that people think that either MBTI or Socionics has to be right when they can be two different pieces to the puzzle. Meaning in other words, if MBTI interpreted JCF, whats not to say they only saw it from their perspective which was only a part of the truth, while Socionics interpreted JCF from a different perspective which was another part of the same truth. Which would help in getting more of a well rounded global meaning of JCF in its entirety. I just dislike how linear some peoples thoughts are on this subject.


I tried the fusing approach first. Then I got fed up with it. I realized it is impossible for me as an amateur without the right tools to equate the cognitive functions with anything really concrete and empirical. And to define functions we need to do this, so what people tend to come up with is some descriptions that are subjective in nature but concrete in description and thus the definition will easily differ between two interpretations. This is why people can have a type in socionics different from MBTI/JCF. 

(I mean operational definition here, not theoretical definition.)

So I ended up respecting the fact that these are two DIFFERENT systems and just stick to that.

What I think about all these cognitive function thingies is basically what Nardi shows in his pilot studied with EEG analysis of brain activity of different MBTI types. That is, there are some different brain activity patterns and I can see a few ideas on how that could be happening on the brain's level in a physiological way, but yeah that's not really well connected to these observable behavioural traits.




Boolean11 said:


> Duck tape engineering? mmmm??
> The two divergent systems aren't answers to everything but merging them is difficult since you end up creating your own one (making that a standard isn't easy).


Make it a standard by showing some empirical proof of actual correlations and whatnot then we can talk. 




Radiant Truth said:


> But its logical, both systems have the same fundamentals, JCF. I've studied Jugs notes myself, so its easy to see where the two different interpretations could have came from. You're right, it wouldn't be the answer to someones psych, considering JCF isn't all the answers to someone's psych, but they do give you more of an understanding abut JCF just from two different perspectives. So therefore it is logical that both systems, which share the same origin (JCF), can be two pieces of a puzzle which would only help in expanding an individuals all around knowledge of JCF by showing them two different interpretations of the same system. In other words, its logical to see mbti cognitive functions and socionics cognitive functions just two different parts of a whole definition of JCF, they're like two different analogies of the same system.


Yes, two pieces to a puzzle. How do you propose to go on with developing a better system?




Radiant Truth said:


> Maybe it's just me and my crazy drive to figure out the "real" objective truth of everything even in the subjective things, but isn't the reason we are all here on this site to figure out our true personality? So wouldn't that mean that we would have to search for it and understand that if we're using two system with the same fundamentals but different interpretations that we would have to fuse them to get to the higher truth?


It's not just you  Same for me. My issue is just the way of how to do that fusing and also what goal we can exactly hope to achieve with it?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Radiant Truth said:


> What I can't seem to understand is why people separate everything instead of fusing them.


Socionics has an answer to that lol

Some people are of Negativist types. Within any field of study, they tend to pay attention to what's lacking, what's missing, flaws, problems, inconsistencies, and so on. You sound like you belong to a Positivist type yourself by the way you are fusing things together and looking at similarities rather than poking at all the differences. It's a difference in cognition.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> I tried the fusing approach first. Then I got fed up with it. I realized it is impossible for me as an amateur without the right tools to equate the cognitive functions with anything really concrete and empirical. And to define functions we need to do this, so what people tend to come up with is some descriptions that are subjective in nature but concrete in description and thus the definition will easily differ between two interpretations. This is why people can have a type in socionics different from MBTI/JCF.
> 
> (I mean operational definition here, not theoretical definition.)
> 
> ...


Start at the cognitive function level, get rid of everything you have ever learned about descriptions of types, and start all over with pure cognitive functions. Keep in mind that these two systems are *only* two different interpretations not two completely different things. So therefore Extraverted Intuition (which is my Dominant function in both MBTI and Socionics, because I am a Ne Dom) in MBTI is one interpretation, but lets say I want to understand it a bit more I'm going to want to read every description and every interpretation of Extraverted Intuition, and then I come across the Socionics interpretation of Ne, I learn it and fuse it with what I already know about Ne. Instead of saying "hey these two descriptions don't say the same thing about the same function, they're completely different therefore I can't combine them", say "hey these two descriptions are saying two different things of the same function, which means these are two different interpretations which come from two different perspectives of the same function, meaning I can combine both of these interpretations to understand how this function works in a more encompassing understanding of the set function". 

From there on you build up your understanding with both theories while knowing that these are two different interpretations of JCF so by learning them you are getting more of a higher truth of JCF. For me it just comes easy maybe because I use Ne-Ti, so I can connect every single thing by thinking of all of its possible interpretations while using Ti to understand where these interpretations come from and why they came to be. So my cognitive functions help me understand how these two systems correlate, because they come from JCF, and my functions help tell me why the interpretations happen to be different but talking about the same thing. I guess its the gift of being an ILE/ENTp/ENTP/Extraverted Intuitive type (which across the board is a Ne dominant type).


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> ...
> Make it a standard by showing some empirical proof of actual correlations and whatnot then we can talk.
> ...


Well prove that "god does not play dice", then we can talk. If you've approached these theories from a concrete/literal, perspective I won't be surprised if you've realize that it doesn't work.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Socionics has an answer to that lol
> 
> Some people are of Negativist types. Within any field of study, they tend to pay attention to what's lacking, what's missing, flaws, problems, inconsistencies, and so on. You sound like you belong to a Positivist type yourself by the way you are fusing things together and looking at similarities rather than poking at all the differences. It's a difference in cognition.


Pretty crappy answer  Can I switch from a Positivist to a Negativist? Either yes and theory is doomed, or no, all I did is change my approach in a specific situation. (I started out with fusing then changed to the non-fusing approach for certain reasons I've explained.) FWIW, I'm more of a Negativist in most situations, but I guess not all of them, if this looking at similarities thing counts as a Positivist approach... but yeah you could say that I tried this for whatever reason but didn't work because I kept finding differences due to being a Negativist. The only question left is, how does socionics explain why I tried to look at similarities first? Yeah, you should at this point say that it doesn't because it was due to some other whatever cause. But then how do you separate out cases where socionics is supposed to explain from cases where it isn't supposed to be relevant? You can't/shouldn't decide it after the fact, that is, when it failed to explain, as this would be a pretty biased way of evaluation.




Radiant Truth said:


> Start at the cognitive function level, get rid of everything you have ever learned about descriptions of types, and start all over with pure cognitive functions.


Did that.  Of course, then function concepts will be completely abstract without any reification and thus typing of people is not going to be possible.

Resolution of that issue? I see typing attempts based on concrete behaviour traits and dichotomies as doomed. Too ambiguous, too many contradictions, affected by too many non-socionics factors, etc. As the functions are something internal in your head, you need to look inside the head.  You could look at brain activity with some imaging tool, to which it's hard to have access; or you could make people use some introspection to get to thinking patterns, but that latter method obviously doesn't work with everyone that easily. 




> Keep in mind that these two systems are *only* two different interpretations not two completely different things. So therefore Extraverted Intuition (which is my Dominant function in both MBTI and Socionics, because I am a Ne Dom) in MBTI is one interpretation, but lets say I want to understand it a bit more I'm going to want to read every description and every interpretation of Extraverted Intuition, and then I come across the Socionics interpretation of Ne, I learn it and fuse it with what I already know about Ne. Instead of saying "hey these two descriptions don't say the same thing about the same function, they're completely different therefore I can't combine them", say "hey these two descriptions are saying two different things of the same function, which means these are two different interpretations which come from two different perspectives of the same function, meaning I can combine both of these interpretations to understand how this function works in a more encompassing understanding of the set function".


All very cool. The catch is, what are we *actually* looking at? What is the essence of the thing you are looking at from different perspectives in the sense of how does it actually exist?

Also, when you fuse the new things with your previous Ne definition is, what you are essentially doing is tacking on more correlations, none of which will be 100%. Then at one point you would have to draw the line between expanding on the definition and between giving up on clarity of definition. Human category perception limits...




> From there on you build up your understanding with both theories while knowing that these are two different interpretations of JCF so by learning them you are getting more of a higher truth of JCF. For me it just comes easy maybe because I use Ne-Ti, so I can connect every single thing by thinking of all of its possible interpretations while using Ti to understand where these interpretations come from and why they came to be. So my cognitive functions help me understand how these two systems correlate, because they come from JCF, and my functions help tell me why the interpretations happen to be different but talking about the same thing. I guess its the gift of being an ILE/ENTp/ENTP/Extraverted Intuitive type (which across the board is a Ne dominant type).


Yeah well, I don't connect everything just for the fun of it, but I can connect things when I see a point to it. And with socionics I was in this mode, seeing a point (I had a goal with it), and thus looking at things from this viewpoint.

But to clarify further, I was asking the question of how to do this fusing not to ask how you yourself do it, my question was originally more about how you'd go about making a system (not even necessarily via this fusing approach) that's workable for others too. What you described was about your own subjective understanding only.




Boolean11 said:


> Well prove that "god does not play dice", then we can talk. If you've approached these theories from a concrete/literal, perspective I won't be surprised if you've realize that it doesn't work.


Hehe @ god reference. My point btw was that this would give the edge to a new standard, because it would have the advantage of offering something the others don't.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Pretty crappy answer  Can I switch from a Positivist to a Negativist? Either yes and theory is doomed, or no, all I did is change my approach in a specific situation.


It's about what you do most naturally, most frequently  The theory isn't doomed because it's not black-and-white like you're trying to make it out to be. N-P do switch, but one will come more naturally to you than the other.

You are thinking like a Negativist type so far. Just take a look at your past posts, how you like poking at flaws, how you are prone to casting negative judgements even seen in your reply above. Typical Negativist thinking style.



itsme45 said:


> The only question left is, how does socionics explain why I tried to look at similarities first?


Have you read through Gulenko's thinking styles article? Each person has 2 thinking styles, meaning that some dichotomies can switch while others are fixed. N/P is dichotomy that can be switched because dual types don't share that one in common.



itsme45 said:


> Yeah, you should at this point say that it doesn't because it was due to some other whatever cause.


*sigh* do you usually go around putting words into other people's mouths, projecting what they will say lol? 

Yes it does, so you failed to anticipate the reply. And the reason that you failed is because you haven't done your research and didn't carefully think this out before jumping to conclusion. I would advise you to read through the thinking styles article carefully, and think about it. The link to it should be in one of the threads I started on ESTP subforum.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> It's about what you do most naturally, most frequently  The theory isn't doomed because it's not black-and-white like you're trying to make it out to be. N-P do switch, but one will come more naturally to you than the other.


That's fine but what if it is nearly 50-50 for someone? The usefulness of the dichotomy will be reduced then.

You say I think of this theory as black-and-white but that's more complicated than that. By doomed, I was of course exaggerating there.  If you read my posts further (e.g. the one above to Radiant Truth after replying to your earlier post), you will see what I actually mean. 




> You are thinking like a Negativist type so far. Just take a look at your past posts, how you like poking at flaws, how you are prone to casting negative judgements even seen in your reply above. Typical Negativist thinking style.


Well, I started with strong positivist side, along with a way of considering things that has been attributed to Ni by someone here (and it makes sense why it would be attributed so, according to theory). But yes, over time I noticed flaws and I guess that's a more convincing thing to me. And yes, I agree that I am more negativist > positivist in general.




> Have you read through Gulenko's thinking styles article? Each person has 2 thinking styles, meaning that some dichotomies can switch while others are fixed. N/P is dichotomy that can be switched because dual types don't share that one in common.


I did read his article before in detail, but okay, I forgot that there is actually 2 possible styles. I read it quite a while ago to be honest. In practice, I've noticed myself use other thinking styles too, depending on situation: mainly H-P, C-D and sometimes V-S where it would be V-S that I'm supposed to be able to switch into at times from default H-P. 




> *sigh* do you usually go around putting words into other people's mouths, projecting what they will say lol?
> 
> Yes it does, so you failed to anticipate the reply. And the reason that you failed is because you haven't done your research and didn't carefully think this out before jumping to conclusion. I would advise you to read through the thinking styles article carefully, and think about it. The link to it should be in one of the threads I started on ESTP subforum.


No, that was not putting words into your mouth, the "you" was a general you, not you personally (I don't even see why you thought that). That misunderstanding should be cleared now. Please do not assume things like that about me without verifying what I meant.

The example was perhaps not the best one but it was one in front of me so I picked that. I could easily use another example and have my reasoning valid. Have you tried to focus on the general reasoning instead of the concrete example? I recommend you read up on human cognitive biases. If you want, I can give you a link to articles that perhaps explain this better than me.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Er? Just based on the OP, I don't find the descriptions mutually exclusive at all. @Boolean11, where did you find the MBTI descriptions? I like how they describe Ni vs. Ne as convergent vs. divergent.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Er? Just based on the OP, I don't find the descriptions mutually exclusive at all. @_Boolean11_, where did you find the MBTI descriptions? I like how they describe Ni vs. Ne as convergent vs. divergent.


I can't quite remember the exact site:
Personality Junkie | The Eight Functions

I agree with you there, which is why I'm struggling to understand how somebody can be a different type in both socionics and mbti, going with the functions. The bottom line is that the feeling, thinking, intuition or sensing is either objective or subjective. I would accept that people may feel that the description may not be actual describing them (stereotypes), but doesn't undermine the supposed ultra difference within the functions as they are merely archaic versions of Jung work. Mutations are in both systems but ultra differences...?? 

Knowing that mistypes exist, I've yet to develop confidence in believing that someone can have different cognitive functions without being a mistype in both or one at least.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Radiant Truth said:


> But its logical, both systems have the same fundamentals, JCF. I've studied Jugs notes myself, so its easy to see where the two different interpretations could have came from. You're right, it wouldn't be the answer to someones psych, considering JCF isn't all the answers to someone's psych, but they do give you more of an understanding abut JCF just from two different perspectives. So therefore it is logical that both systems, which share the same origin (JCF), can be two pieces of a puzzle which would only help in expanding an individuals all around knowledge of JCF by showing them two different interpretations of the same system. In other words, its logical to see mbti cognitive functions and socionics cognitive functions just two different parts of a whole definition of JCF, they're like two different analogies of the same system.


The two systems are _different interpretations_ of jung's work.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> I can't quite remember the exact site:
> Personality Junkie | The Eight Functions
> 
> I agree with you there, which is why I'm struggling to understand how somebody can be a different type in both socionics and mbti, going with the function. The bottom line is that the feeling, thinking, intuition or sensing is either objective or subjective. I would accept that people may feel that the description may not be actual describing them, but doesn't undermine the supposed difference within the functions as they are merely archaic versions of Jung work.


It might have to do with the way the tests are constructed. I don't know whether there is an 'official' socionics test. ??? I only took that word pairs test on socionics.com and I found that many of the stereotypical INTJ/INTp words sound way too harsh for me. Also, I can be both structured/goal oriented/what have you and a useless layabout (depends entirely on whether I'm at work or at home), so I picked lots of contradictory words and I suppose that's why this test couldn't tell whether I'm an INTJ or INTP.
I'd like to know how many people test as a different type in MBTI than in socionics. I'll track down the threads you made about this.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Promethea said:


> The two systems are _different interpretations_ of jung's work.


I have stated that at least three times in this thread alone. Two of which are in the quote you posted above, also stating that these two different interpretations happened due to different individuals seeing Jungs work from different perspectives, one perspective being a part of the truth of Jungs work, while the other perspective being another part of the truth of Jungs work. They're essentially two different analogies explaining the same Concept. Its foolish to think that Socionics completely changed Jungs system/concept whem in fact they, just like MBTI kept to the same fundamentals of his work but gave two different interpretations due to two different perspectives being the cause of the difference n interpretation. If you don't want to see it that way then I just can't help you.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> It might have to do with the way the tests are constructed. I don't know whether there is an 'official' socionics test. ??? I only took that word pairs test on socionics.com and I found that many of the stereotypical INTJ/INTp words sound way too harsh for me. Also, I can be both structured/goal oriented/what have you and a useless layabout (depends entirely on whether I'm at work or at home), so I picked lots of contradictory words and I suppose that's why this test couldn't tell whether I'm an INTJ or INTP.
> I'd like to know how many people test as a different type in MBTI than in socionics. I'll track down the threads you made about this.


 @_itsme45_
Has suggested that she is a different type in both system the differences (in the functions) are regarded being irreconcilable enough to throw of type. I really want to see if someone is a confident Te thinker in MBTI but then becomes a confident Ti thinker in socionics. 

I think somebody is going going to think that they are MBTI:ISTJ and Socionics INTj, since both types are are stereotyped as being judgmental and traditionalist (policeman types). However I would then want see whether they've understood the cognitive functions or not, specifically knowing what subjectivity and objectivity is.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Radiant Truth said:


> I have stated that at least three times in this thread alone. Two of which are in the quote you posted above, also stating that these two different interpretations happened due to different individuals seeing Jungs work from different perspectives, one perspective being a part of the truth of Jungs work, while the other perspective being another part of the truth of Jungs work. They're essentially two different analogies explaining the same Concept. Its foolish to think that Socionics completely changed Jungs system/concept whem in fact they, just like MBTI kept to the same fundamentals of his work but gave two different interpretations due to two different perspectives being the cause of the difference n interpretation. If you don't want to see it that way then I just can't help you.


Yes. I'm always baffled by this. If you _acknowledge_ that they are different interpretations of the models -- then why do you think they can be fused together? Are the originators of mbti and socionics going to change their minds on what they interpreted and overhaul the models so they can try to agree with each other? Somehow I doubt it. 

The differences in the components of the system make for different personality flavors - some of them don't even make sense cross-system. An sli for example cannot be found in mbti - it does not exist between istp and istj. Are you proposing we just fit it in there somewhere with a new label? How does this work.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

The theories derive from Jung. That does not necessarily mean that their content/areas in human personality also derive from the same origin in human personality. 

MBTI and Socionics are not well and truly interpretations of the same whole, they maybe create their "own new wholes".


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Two things being different in _wording _is not the same thing as two things being different in _principle_. The logic of both MBTI and socionics is what creates the types, and the logic of both systems is not dependent on what seems to be mistaken here for linguistic "offshoots" from Jung. The purpose of the function descriptions is not to devise some sort of Jung "derivative" that extends beyond and separates itself from the other theories, it is to simplify Jung itself so other people could read and understand without going through all of _Psychological Types _on their own - which happened to be done with different languages across the pond. The functions in both systems are supposed to be the real Jung in more simplistic language, not their own constructs. 

Again this would make a difference if the ITR's and other parts of socionics were dependent on the subjective descriptions, but they're not. They're based on the inherent natures of the functions themselves, not on the nuance of the way they are verbalized.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Yes. I'm always baffled by this. If you _acknowledge_ that they are different interpretations of the models -- then why do you think they can be fused together? Are the originators of mbti and socionics going to change their minds on what they interpreted and overhaul the models so they can try to agree with each other? Somehow I doubt it.
> 
> The differences in the components of the system make for different personality flavors - some of them don't even make sense cross-system. An sli for example cannot be found in mbti - it does not exist between istp and istj. Are you proposing we just fit it in there somewhere with a new label? How does this work.


They can be fused together because they share the same fundamentals which happens to be JCF. The cognitive functions are the same just looked at from two different perspectives, so all we have to do is understand that the cognitive functions described in both systems are essentially talking about the same thing, so for instance all we have to do is add one of the systems definitions of cognitive functions to the other systems definition of the cognitive functions to get more than one perspective of the cognitive functions, which will help us understand from more than one perspective of JCF.

The authors of mbti and socionics do not need to change their writings or systems at all, but we as the readers (which includes any authors trying to interpret socionics by adding their own subjective ideas on how it mixes with mbti) need to change how we organize our minds. For instance, the mbti organized the functions in an up down order, from most to least used functions n a type, while socionics organizes the functions by Freudian psychoanalysis boxes (just the words tho, it differs from Freudian psychoanalysis in more ways than it is similar) I'd, super I'd, ego, super ego blocks. They are not the most to least used, they have different ways of looking at it. If you study socionics you'll understand they have a concept called valued functions, the valued functions are similar to MBTI's way of organizing the functions from most to least used, but valued functions in socionics just states the individuals personality type s most used functions. The valued functions are located in the ego block and the super I'd block. I'll show you an example using the ILE:

*Ego block: Ne-Ti.* Super Ego block: Se-Fi. *Super Id block: Si-Fe.* Id block: Ni-Te.

The valued functions of the ILE are equivalent to MBTIs ENTPs cognitive functions set up, Ne-Ti-Fe-Si. Another thing to understand is the only functions that are in order from most used to less used are located in the Ego block. For the ILE that is Ne-Ti, so when studying Socionics using their three letter code you look at the first letter which is Intuition stating that their main way of processing information is imtuition , then the next letter for the ILE stands for Logical which is stating that the ILE's secondary way of processing is Logical (thinking). Before I continue to the third letter we should go back to MBTI really quick. In MBTI we have only two types which use intuition as a first function and thinking as their second function, those two types are the INTJ and the ENTP. This is where Socionics third letter comes into play, the third letter states whether the type is an introvert or an extrovert, so for the ILE we have Intuitive-Logical-Extravert which can only be translated in MBTI as the ENTP. So the SLI would be Sensing-Logical-Introvert which will translate to MBTI as ISTJ. What is the ISTJ's first two functions, Introverted sensing and Extraverted thinking. What is the SLI's main two valued ways of processing information, Introverted sensing and Extraverted Logic (thinking). Idk its not really hard to fuse the two systems together if you organize your mind right and use JCF as the fundamental system of the two systems. When studying mbti and socionics side by side you have to use JCF as your tool of translation and comparison. Also do not use JCF you see online, go to the official source, the actual notes on each function by Carl Jung himself, so you have his works as your fundamental way of comparing these two systems.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Dastan said:


> The theories derive from Jung. That does not necessarily mean that their content/areas in human personality also *derive from the same origin in human personality. *
> 
> MBTI and Socionics are not well and truly interpretations of the same whole, they maybe create their "own new wholes".


The way I like to describe it, is that its like different beams of light illuminating different parts of a personality -- in some places the beams will overlap. I like to use the sli as an example because the first time I met one up close and personal - with the idea of what an sli 'is,' it was a new species unknown to mbti. I would certainly not say he is mbti Si dominant. I'd have probably given him Fi dom in mbti - however, in socionics I can certainly see the Si because of what socionics Si 'is.' 

I do see a lot of overlap between Ni and Ne cross-system. Ti and Te however - very different. So naturally a Ti dom in one system is going to look different from another.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Promethea said:


> *The way I like to describe it*, is that its like different beams of light illuminating different parts of a personality -- in some places the beams will overlap. I like to use the sli as an example because the first time *I met one* up close and personal - with the idea of what an sli 'is,' it was a new species unknown to mbti.* I would certainly not say* he is mbti Si dominant. *I'd have probably given him* Fi dom in mbti - however, in socionics *I can certainly see the* Si because of what socionics Si 'is.'
> 
> *I do see* a lot of overlap between Ni and Ne cross-system. Ti and Te however - very different. So naturally a Ti dom in one system is going to look different from another.


Everything you have said that I have made bold in your post has been *your* subjective analysis of both systems. I stay away from subjectivity when deal with fusing these two systems, I use the objectivity of both systems first then once I see the correlation then I add the new found knowledge to my subjective analysis (My introverted Logic or Introverted Thinking). What ever I believed before that goes against what I have now adapted fro, the objective view gets discarded, while the new found knowledge replaces it. Which is why its easy for me to see that both of these systems with their different interpretations coming from two different perspectives while analyzing JCF are just two pieces of the higher truth of JCF, so therefore I fuse both of these systems interpretations of the set functions so I have more of a complete objective analysis of each function. Whatever I believed before which goes against the new fused system is completely discarded because it goes against the objective logic which my to picks up on and makes sure I stay as logical as possible. Introverted Logic/Introverted Thinking is a subjective analysis logical system builder meaning I have the control to change the system absorbing all objective facts into my subjective unconscious which in due term helps me adapt a system as logical as possible to analyze everything else I learn in the future by. The more objectively accurate of a logical system that I have in my subjective unconscious, the more accurate my analysis will be with other things. I don't care for my subjectivity if it goes against objective logical facts. I'm this case the objective logical fact is if two systems share the same fundamentals which is their origin comes from the same system then therefore a correlation does exist.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Radiant Truth said:


> Everything you have said that I have made bold in your post has been *your* subjective analysis of both systems. I stay away from subjectivity when deal with fusing these two systems, I use the objectivity of both systems first then once I see the correlation then I add the new found knowledge to my subjective analysis (My introverted Logic or Introverted Thinking). What ever I believed before that goes against what I have now adapted fro, the objective view gets discarded, while the new found knowledge replaces it. Which is why its easy for me to see that both of these systems with their different interpretations coming from two different perspectives while analyzing JCF are just two pieces of the higher truth of JCF, so therefore I fuse both of these systems interpretations of the set functions so I have more of a complete objective analysis of each function. Whatever I believed before which goes against the new fused system is completely discarded because it goes against the objective logic which my to picks up on and makes sure I stay as logical as possible. Introverted Logic/Introverted Thinking is a subjective analysis logical system builder meaning I have the control to change the system absorbing all objective facts into my subjective unconscious which in due term helps me adapt a system as logical as possible to analyze everything else I learn in the future by. The more objectively accurate of a logical system that I have in my subjective unconscious, the more accurate my analysis will be with other things. I don't care for my subjectivity if it goes against objective logical facts. I'm this case the objective logical fact is if two systems share the same fundamentals which is their origin comes from the same system then therefore a correlation does exist.


In that case, anyone whos typing anyone is being subjective. I fail to see your point beyond just that.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Promethea said:


> In that case, anyone whos typing anyone is being subjective. I fail to see your point beyond just that.


When comparing systems you don't type people, you compare the systems first in the most objective logical way, then after doing that you can acquire your new knowledge. You then use your new knowledge to type individuals, hence why if you fuse the two systems you can have an easier time analyzing people by cognitive functions the most accurate way as possible.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

LXPilot said:


> Two things being different in _wording _is not the same thing as two things being different in _principle_. The logic of both MBTI and socionics is what creates the types, and the logic of both systems is not dependent on what seems to be mistaken here for linguistic "offshoots" from Jung.


Who can assure that principles do not change from theory to theory? Looking at the same things of such a complex topic like personality by using different perspectives can also open completely new aspects which are not only side effects of the original object. And how theorizers verbalize it is our only view in how they understand it.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Radiant Truth said:


> When comparing systems you don't type people, you compare the systems first in the most objective logical way, then after doing that you can acquire your new knowledge. You then use your new knowledge to type individuals, hence why if you fuse the two systems you can have an easier time analyzing people by cognitive functions the most accurate way as possible.


So then any comparison of a system is what you are trying to say is subjective on my part? Lost me. 

If I'm looking at a field guide for flora and fauna, and I identify something in the forest based on that guide - though its still coming from my observation, it doesn't necessarily have to be subjective. If I am examining different aspects of the same object with different interpretative guides - I do not lose objectivity simply because I'm looking at it from different angles based in very real attributes.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Dastan said:


> Who can assure that principles do not change from theory to theory? Looking at the same things of such a complex topic like personality by using different perspectives can also open completely new aspects which are not only side effects of the original object. And how theorizers verbalize it is our only view in how they understand it.


The principle of these two systems are JCF, you and I can both interpret JCF differently and be right. We can also branch off making two different personality theories from our two different perspectives of the same system which would essentially be saying the same thing. The principle being JCF did not change just two different perspectives talking about the same thing. In order for a principle to change then one of the systems would have to adopt a different system to go off of as its initial fundamental system. The initial fundamental system of MBTI and Socionics happens to be JCF, so therefore the initial principle never changes.

Also a principle as a rule will always be the systems fundamental objective facts, not the different perspectives which is a subjective analysis. Perspectives are not principles, Objective rules are principles, so therefore your logic is flawed.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Promethea said:


> So then any comparison of a system is what you are trying to say is subjective on my part? Lost me.
> 
> If I'm looking at a field guide for flora and fauna, and I identify something in the forest based on that guide - though its still coming from my observation, it doesn't necessarily have to be subjective. If I am examining different aspects of the same object with different interpretative guides - *I do not lose objectivity simply because I'm looking at it from different angles based in very real attributes.*


On the contrary, everything you make an opinion about is a subjective response to what you are perceiving. These different angles are based upon your subjective analysis of what you are taking in even when looking at real attributes. If you were to delve further into the study of flora/fauna and happened to come across some type of knowledge which debunks what you *thought* you have identified then your whole system has to be evaluated because what you have identified was a subjective response to your objective knowledge with the material you had at hand. That subjective response can be wrong if you read further into the study finding out a piece of knowledge which would change your subjective analysis. Hence why when I type people, I understand I can be completely wrong because by typing someone I am making a subjective analysis of the person based on objective facts, the subjective analysis could be wrong because it is that, subjective. If you base your knowledge off of your subjective analysis your bond to make many mistakes in your logic along the way.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Radiant Truth said:


> On the contrary, everything you make an opinion about is a subjective response to what you are perceiving. These different angles are based upon your subjective analysis of what you are taking in even when looking at real attributes. If you were to delve further into the study of flora/fauna and happened to come across some type of knowledge which debunks what you *thought* you have identified then your whole system has to be evaluated because what you have identified was a subjective response to your objective knowledge with the material you had at hand. That subjective response can be wrong if you read further into the study finding out a piece of knowledge which would change your subjective analysis. Hence why when I type people, I understand I can be completely wrong because by typing someone I am making a subjective analysis of the person based on objective facts, the subjective analysis could be wrong because it is that, subjective. If you base your knowledge off of your subjective analysis your bond to make many mistakes in your logic along the way.


I think we have really strayed from the point. As I see it - socionics and mbti are looking at parts of personality, and calling labeling it. Some of these things share the same label though different things are being looked at - sure, with some overlap. If you and I disagree on that, we aren't going to see eye to eye on this matter. Because sure, I think I'm starting to see what you mean but we have a fundamental difference of opinion likely.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

If you type a person based on purely projected "behaviour" then with than logic somebody can see themselves as having two separate cognitive functions within the two systems. For example when someone is a traditionalist and judgmental person, then it makes sense to immediately type the person as ISTJ in MBTI and ISTj in socionics since the strong grounding in reality is a stereotypical attribute given by both models when we see a person exhibiting such behaviour. Thus the notion that MBTI and Socionics are fundamentally incompatible holds water when we view it from this lens. 

However if we are to use a cognitive process out look, were we examine the "thought process" driving the perception of reality, then we realise that its impossible to type the traditionalist, judgmental policeman in both systems with opposing functions. Its either our buddy here could turn out to be either MBTI ISTJ and Socionics ISTp or contrary MBTI ISTP and Socionics ISTj. When evaluating the thought process its either we are going to find out that he either prefers to "subject" his sensing and "object" thinking or contrary prefers to subject thinking and object sensing. Which is under the obvious assumption that the guy strongly sees himself as a thinking sensor. 

With behaviour analysis, the two are theories look incompatible and it would be justified to conclude so, but if you look at the "thought process" incompatibility between Socionics and MBTI can't exist, any faults occurring from that would be just the false stereotypes originating from both systems. 

I tried to make these threads looking at the whole thought process vs behaviour when typing:


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Dastan said:


> Who can assure that principles do not change from theory to theory? Looking at the same things of such a complex topic like personality by using different perspectives can also open completely new aspects which are not only side effects of the original object. And how theorizers verbalize it is our only view in how they understand it.


Nobody can _assure _it because its publication is dependent on the linguistics of its presentation - just like almost everything else. 

I won't argue against that sort of solipsism for what it is on its own, but if that's the sort of take you follow with typology, then socionics is probably not a good system for you. The structure of the model was described by Augusta in 1995 to be a means of "improving Jung" with Kepinski's information metabolism theory. By that very statement, Jung is clearly at the core of socionics, and it is the critical basis of the theory, no matter how it is extended, or in however many different ways it is connected to other ideas. 

If that isn't clear enough to say that Augusta used Jung's functions, then socionics, as well as typology theory as a whole, is probably making "jumps" that are irreconcilable to the aforementioned skepticism with intelligibility. You have to get your hands a bit dirty with it, being nothing more than a model.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> I agree with you there, which is why I'm struggling to understand how somebody can be a different type in both socionics and mbti, going with the functions. The bottom line is that the feeling, thinking, intuition or sensing is either objective or subjective. I would accept that people may feel that the description may not be actual describing them (stereotypes), but doesn't undermine the supposed ultra difference within the functions as they are merely archaic versions of Jung work. Mutations are in both systems but ultra differences...??


Well the different types would result from using different operational definitions of the functions. How are you typing someone without any operational definition based on externally observable things? Well there is two ways, one is using the results of introspection of thinking patterns/cognitive attitudes of the typee subject (which will not work easily with everyone), another is brain imagining, the latter as long as there are differences in brain activity patterns and as long as these are consistent with the definitions of function concepts. In Dario Nardi's EEG pilot studies the consistency was not 100%. 50% of people within one type (determined by his questionnaire, which opens another can of worms, detailed below) shared 80% or more of their brain activity patterns. The other half didn't. That's not bad though, better than random. Nardi's questionnaire does ask mostly about thinking patterns and attitudes but not all the questions are like that.

Now another issue, socionics does have Si defined with a different cognitive attitude from MBTI Si. How is that possible, which one follows directly from the idea of Subjective Sensing (S+I)? Explain that one, tell me which system is right about Si. 




Promethea said:


> The two systems are _different interpretations_ of jung's work.


Not just that, but socionics added some other bunch of stuff into their system. Some physics idea thingies.




Boolean11 said:


> @_itsme45_
> Has suggested that she is a different type in both system the differences (in the functions) are regarded being irreconcilable enough to throw of type. I really want to see if someone is a confident Te thinker in MBTI but then becomes a confident Ti thinker in socionics.


Maybe I misunderstand you here but did you say I think I'm a different type in these two systems? No I'm the same type actually  

Te and Ti definitions are also not the same. Consider ISTJ and ISTj, ISTJ goes by rules because of the Te, ISTj also goes by rules... because of the Ti. These rules for ISTj are not necessarily subjective in the way MBTI Ti is so they can be Te in MBTI. 




> I think somebody is going going to think that they are MBTI:ISTJ and Socionics INTj, since both types are are stereotyped as being judgmental and traditionalist (policeman types). However I would then want see whether they've understood the cognitive functions or not, specifically knowing what subjectivity and objectivity is.


Answered above.




Promethea said:


> The differences in the components of the system make for different personality flavors - some of them don't even make sense cross-system. An sli for example cannot be found in mbti - it does not exist between istp and istj. Are you proposing we just fit it in there somewhere with a new label? How does this work.


A very good point. Some people here seem to forget that we do not actually fully understand how from the concept of a function and its attitude a personality will be derived in reality. We do not even have proof that personality is affected that much by cognitive functions. The concrete traits that tend to get associated can easily be caused by other things.




Dastan said:


> MBTI and Socionics are not well and truly interpretations of the same whole, they maybe create their "own new wholes".


Very nice argument. Let me add, these are subjective wholes.




LXPilot said:


> Two things being different in _wording _is not the same thing as two things being different in _principle_. The logic of both MBTI and socionics is what creates the types, and the logic of both systems is not dependent on what seems to be mistaken here for linguistic "offshoots" from Jung.


Er, the systems logic creating the types? That means it is full of unsaid and unproven assumptions. Give me a fully fleshed out causal reasoning for X function causing Y behaviour. Not going to happen without knowing more about brain workings  things that are way outside the scope of MBTI or socionics yet they hide implicit assumptions about these things. And socionics assumes way more than MBTI, so MBTI is a better system than socionics based on the principle of Occam's razor. Jung's original is the best based on that, though.




> The purpose of the function descriptions is not to devise some sort of Jung "derivative" that extends beyond and separates itself from the other theories, it is to simplify Jung itself so other people could read and understand without going through all of _Psychological Types _on their own - which happened to be done with different languages across the pond. The functions in both systems are supposed to be the real Jung in more simplistic language, not their own constructs.


Nono, it's not just to simplify Jung, these systems are independent from Jung's stuff even if they took inspiration from Jung.




> Again this would make a difference if the ITR's and other parts of socionics were dependent on the subjective descriptions, but they're not. They're based on the inherent natures of the functions themselves, not on the nuance of the way they are verbalized.


What is this inherent nature of functions exactly as explained by you in words?




Radiant Truth said:


> They can be fused together because they share the same fundamentals which happens to be JCF. The cognitive functions are the same just looked at from two different perspectives, so all we have to do is understand that the cognitive functions described in both systems are essentially talking about the same thing, so for instance all we have to do is add one of the systems definitions of cognitive functions to the other systems definition of the cognitive functions to get more than one perspective of the cognitive functions, which will help us understand from more than one perspective of JCF.


Ok. What *is* a cognitive function, what are you looking at from different perspectives? I think I asked you this before, maybe I didn't see it yet if you answered it.

I could see some of the functions being the same thinking patterns in both systems (*not* all of the functions though), but to describe that it would be better to stay concise and general instead of mixing in concrete definitions from different systems.

Also how do you fuse MBTI Si and Socionics Si? I'd really like to know about this one.




> The authors of mbti and socionics do not need to change their writings or systems at all, but we as the readers (which includes any authors trying to interpret socionics by adding their own subjective ideas on how it mixes with mbti) need to change how we organize our minds.


Sorry what do you mean by changing how we organize our minds? That's really weird wording, please clarify. Also, adding in subjective ideas is just going to confuse things instead of building a better system. No need for redundancy.




> For instance, the mbti organized the functions in an up down order, from most to least used functions n a type, while socionics organizes the functions by Freudian psychoanalysis boxes (just the words tho, it differs from Freudian psychoanalysis in more ways than it is similar) I'd, super I'd, ego, super ego blocks. They are not the most to least used, they have different ways of looking at it.


Btw, in socionics the suggestive/DS function is a positive something that the person seeks relentlessly in the environment and in others, inferior function in Jung's writings and MBTI is a negative something that the person represses and avoids in others. Your reconcilation here?




> Idk its not really hard to fuse the two systems together if you organize your mind right and use JCF as the fundamental system of the two systems.


Again, what is this "organize your mind right" thing?




Promethea said:


> The way I like to describe it, is that its like different beams of light illuminating different parts of a personality -- in some places the beams will overlap. I like to use the sli as an example because the first time I met one up close and personal - with the idea of what an sli 'is,' it was a new species unknown to mbti. I would certainly not say he is mbti Si dominant. I'd have probably given him Fi dom in mbti - however, in socionics I can certainly see the Si because of what socionics Si 'is.'


Nice analogy.




Radiant Truth said:


> When comparing systems you don't type people, you compare the systems first in the most objective logical way, then after doing that you can acquire your new knowledge. You then use your new knowledge to type individuals, hence why if you fuse the two systems you can have an easier time analyzing people by cognitive functions the most accurate way as possible.


Easier time? As explained above, I think it actually makes it a more complex task. When you define your own new fused functions, you will unavoidably slip into using concrete descriptions, definitions, even if general, e.g. "Se is in the here-and-now". Now if you try to build a more complex system in this fusing manner, it will be harder to satisfy all that for actual people to fit into the functions.

Though of course maybe you just meant using the same parts in both systems. However there is sometimes not enough left that's similar after discarding the differences (Si function for example)... Also, if we go by such generic somethings, that's great, and it may actually work, but will be less usable for any practical goals as it's not going to tell much in the way of specifics about the person. This is not a problem though and I actually keep saying that users should not overuse the knowledge of types for relationship or other issues in life. For self-discovery it can trigger introspection and observation modes though. 




Radiant Truth said:


> The principle of these two systems are JCF, you and I can both interpret JCF differently and be right.


Be right... only theoretically.




> The principle of these two systems are JCF, you and I can both interpret JCF differently and be right. We can also branch off making two different personality theories from our two different perspectives of the same system which would essentially be saying the same thing.


How could two different theories say the same thing? They are different by definition as they do not say the same things.




> The principle being JCF did not change just two different perspectives talking about the same thing. In order for a principle to change then one of the systems would have to adopt a different system to go off of as its initial fundamental system. The initial fundamental system of MBTI and Socionics happens to be JCF, so therefore the initial principle never changes.


It did change, I've given you a few examples above.




> Also a principle as a rule will always be the systems fundamental objective facts, not the different perspectives which is a subjective analysis. Perspectives are not principles, Objective rules are principles, so therefore your logic is flawed.


A principle is not to be mistaken with objective facts. (!!!)




LXPilot said:


> I won't argue against that sort of solipsism for what it is on its own, but if that's the sort of take you follow with typology, then socionics is probably not a good system for you.


For who would it be a good system?




> If that isn't clear enough to say that Augusta used Jung's functions, then socionics, as well as typology theory as a whole, is probably making "jumps" that are irreconcilable to the aforementioned skepticism with intelligibility. You have to get your hands a bit dirty with it, being nothing more than a model.


Augusta changed a few function definitions and other things and added non-jungian things into it... Yes the theory is making a lot of jumps. I don't see how getting your hands dirty with it will help there.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

Is there anyone here who is well versed in Socionics typing who might help me out? We don't have a socionics subforum here so I'm not sure where to post about this...


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Well the different types would result from using different operational definitions of the functions. How are you typing someone without any operational definition based on externally observable things? Well there is two ways, one is using the results of introspection of thinking patterns/cognitive attitudes of the typee subject (which will not work easily with everyone), another is brain imagining, the latter as long as there are differences in brain activity patterns and as long as these are consistent with the definitions of function concepts. In Dario Nardi's EEG pilot studies the consistency was not 100%. 50% of people within one type (determined by his questionnaire, which opens another can of worms, detailed below) shared 80% or more of their brain activity patterns. The other half didn't. That's not bad though, better than random. Nardi's questionnaire does ask mostly about thinking patterns and attitudes but not all the questions are like that.
> 
> Now another issue, socionics does have Si defined with a different cognitive attitude from MBTI Si. How is that possible, which one follows directly from the idea of Subjective Sensing (S+I)? Explain that one, tell me which system is right about Si.
> 
> ...


I have one question for you, have you read Carl Jungs official notes on cognitive functions? Please be honest, I'm not talking about what the Internet has, I'm talking about from his books directly, have you read his books?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

soya said:


> Is there anyone here who is well versed in Socionics typing who might help me out? We don't have a socionics subforum here so I'm not sure where to post about this...


Er, this thread is in the socionics subforum, have a look around it, you should be able to open a thread in the socionics forum.




Radiant Truth said:


> I have one question for you, have you read Carl Jungs official notes on cognitive functions? Please be honest, I'm not talking about what the Internet has, I'm talking about from his books directly, have you read his books?


I read the chapter X stuff in his Psychological Types book, not his other books though as psychoanalysis in general is not really "my theory". I did like his function stuff though.

Why do you ask?

Also if you bothered to quote all that text, you could have replied to it


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@_itsme45_
As I've said if you are going by "behavioral stereotypes" then the two are different. I would not expect either models to in anyway good at predicting the range behaviours that a person may learn which won't be inline with the expected thought process. Whats not to say that I can't develop an ISTJ behavioral pattern that could lead people to assume that ISTJ cognitive processes where the ones I possessed. Anyway this is not a question since that I understand that its just part of your position, fundamentally we hold different principles.

At this point you failed to understand my point of view. Note, understanding doesn't mean "agree". I understood your point of view seeing the logic in it though I don't agree with it. So if you are trying to understand our point of view, don't compare it with yours since the primary principles are different. If you want to understand the point of view in all its integrity, you have to factor in the different principles, the ISTJ example I've mentioned is more of a guide in trying to get you to see that the principles aren't the same thus comparison is no use. 

Anyway to put it succinctly, the bottom line is that we seem to look at/value the way the psyche collects its "data", be it thinking, feeling, intuition or sensing, as the determination of type, asking what is "objective" and "subjective" rooting from Carl Jung. From this we merely see Socionics and MBTI interpretations as a heuristic probability/predictor of the type behaviour the cognitive process are predicted to demonstrate. It can ever be truly right, hence it makes sense that type descriptions would be off course with some people. Hence Socionics and MBTI share core principles which are the same, they have the same definition of objectivity and subjectivity, the simple differences, would be more of flaws from the two authors failure to interpret the behaviours of the functions in a way that is totally impartial (well true impartiality is impossible anyway).


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> That means it is full of unsaid and unproven assumptions. Give me a fully fleshed out causal reasoning for X function causing Y behaviour.


Neah, not wasting my time with that. I took what you said seriously for awhile, but you seem to be more interested in proving me wrong than you are in learning about socionics in a way that doesn't cater to your own functional preferences (Se, Ti) by being black and white and plain as day in use, and I have better things to do than twittle around doing that.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> As I've said if you are going by "behavioral stereotypes" then the two are different. I would not expect either models to in anyway good at predicting the range behaviours that a person may learn which won't be inline with the expected thought process. Whats not to say that I can't develop an ISTJ behavioral pattern that could lead people to assume that ISTJ cognitive processes where the ones I possessed. Anyway this is not a question since that I understand that its just part of your position, fundamentally we hold different principles.


As for your example making yourself behave like an ISTJ, that's ok as long as the general trends of using your internal thinking processes are unchanged.




> At this point you failed to understand my point of view. Note, understanding doesn't mean "agree". I understood your point of view seeing the logic in it though I don't agree with it. So if you are trying to understand our point of view, don't compare it with yours since the primary principles are different. If you want to understand the point of view in all its integrity, you have to factor in the different principles, the ISTJ example I've mentioned is more of a guide in trying to get you to see that the principles aren't the same thus comparison is no use.


I understand your point about subjectivity vs objectivity. I'd still like you to address the question of interpreting Subjective Sensing in such a different way between Jung, MBTI, Socionics. This is important because your position relies on the idea that the definition of subjectivity and objectivity is the same across these systems but it is not. Introverted functions in Socionics are not quite subjective in the same way as in MBTI/JCF. The Te/Ti example is good for that too.

I'm not sure what comparison you are talking about here. What are your principles that I don't understand in your opinion?




> Anyway to put it succinctly, the bottom line is that we seem to look at/value the way the psyche collects its "data", be it thinking, feeling, intuition or sensing, as the determination of type, asking what is "objective" and "subjective" rooting from Carl Jung. From this we merely see Socionics and MBTI interpretations as a heuristic probability/predictor of the type behaviour the cognitive process are predicted to demonstrate. It can ever be truly right, hence it makes sense that type descriptions would be off course with some people. Hence Socionics and MBTI share core principles which are the same, they have the same definition of objectivity and subjectivity, the simple differences, would be more of flaws from the two authors failure to interpret the behaviours of the functions in a way that is totally impartial (well true impartiality is impossible anyway).


Some principles in MBTI and in Socionics explicitly differ. I've given a few examples of that.

How do you propose to interpret functions in an impartial way* without using objective tools? These tools we currently lack about functions unless we want to equate functions with concrete behaviour things but that's not a good option. So what we have left is processes inside the mind/brain and that's cool but apparently MBTI and Socionics still managed to pick different processes e.g. for Si. 

*: I do realise you said true impartiality is impossible, but then that needs to be taken into account when evaluating the issues here.




LXPilot said:


> Neah, not wasting my time with that. I took what you said seriously for awhile, but you seem to be more interested in proving me wrong than you are in learning about socionics in a way that doesn't cater to your own functional preferences (Se, Ti) by being black and white and plain as day in use, and I have better things to do than twittle around doing that.


See, this is one bad result of typology systems. Just because I have a label in my profile that says ESTP, you start assuming things about me that could be completely off the mark *AND* then actually using these assumptions in practice instead of verifying if they are correct, that is, whether my attitude is really such and instead you just decide not to take me seriously.

That's a really really bad example of typism here, using a type label as an excuse for something...

Let me tell you, no, you're wrong about your assumptions about me. I spent quite a lot of time studying Socionics using a theoretical approach too. And it's my right to question if something doesn't make sense. I also find it completely natural to inquire about what someone thinks about something. If you find you are unable to explain how X function can cause Y behaviour without using assumptions outside what these typology systems explicitly state, then do not try to blame me for it. 

Again, really bad strategy to use typism to avoid answering. Can't you handle disagreement?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Er, this thread is in the socionics subforum, have a look around it, you should be able to open a thread in the socionics forum.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm going to, the initial reason was to see what thought process you are using as the foundation of your subjective analysis. It helps me find the language in which I can present my information. Now that I know I can answer your questions.

First I'll start with an analogy: You have two apples, one is half the size of the other. You then proceed to ask your two friends how many apples do you have. One of your friends says "You have two apples", while the other says "You have either an apple and a half". Both of these perceptions are right by the laws of logic since the sensory perception of the two apples shows just that, two apples by the definition of an apple, on the other hand the logic could be that the bigger apple is a full apple, while the other apple can only be described as half an apple since if you go off of empirical evidence a full size apple has to be a certain measurement which the other apple only fits in half that measurement making it only half an apple. If that half an apple kept getting smaller till it didn't exist than we would only have one apple. Now you may say well its two apples no matter what making it two apples but now look at this, if I gave you two full size apples, then carved out half of the properties in one of the apples they would essentially share the same properties never the less to be considered an apple but the newly made half an apple would be considered half an apple because it was half of what it was. Therefore these two different ways of looking at the number of apples are both right but looked at from different perspectives, making it not right theoretically but right objectively.

A cognitive function is how we process information, there are 8 different ways to process information which means there are 8 different ways fundamentally to interpret information, not one way being better or right then the other. That also answers your question on how two different interpreted systems based off of the same system can highly correlate with each other because they are different perspectives of the theory in question. 



> Introverted Sensing is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail.
> *Introverted Sensing focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects.* This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and *how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. *The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. *The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure*





> *Introverted Sensing often involves storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with similar ones.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The first one is Socionics description of So from wikisocion, the second one is MBTIs description from cognitiveprocesses.com. I'm not seeing how everyone keeps implying they are different when its just them being worded different but stating the same thing. Also how two things can be different in interpretation but mean the same thing. Let's look at linguistics, how we have synonyms, words that have similar meanings so they can be used in favor of another which shares its meaning. These two systems are synonyms of each other hence how they're written in two different perspectives with two different interpretations by using different words that are saying the same thing (synonyms). 

Also your positive and negative theories between the inferior and suggestive proves my theory on two different interpretations saying the same thing, because the words positive and negative are subjective words used in place to describe what the authors are describing. MBTI stayed with how one function is used less than the other, showing all of the negative ramifications of the function towards the type, while socionics focuses on how the functions work in the individual focusing on all the positive ramifications. Two different subjective analysis based off of two different interpretations coming from two different perspectives sharing the same system (JCF) as their fundamentals. Like I said before I stay away from all the subjectivity and focus solely on the objectivity of these two systems and their correlations.

What I will agree with you on is a principle can be subjective for it is the fundamental truth of which serves as the foundation of a system. Going off of that these two systems most obviously apparent principle which happens to be (JCF) being looked at from two different lenses. Never the less they share the same principle meaning there is an objective correlation (JCF) between the two when you only focus on their subjectivity to further your knowledge of the objective (Cognitive functions) In question. The principle therefore never changed but systems were built upon the same principle going in two different direction, making a correlation highly possible between the two.

Organize your mind means to be able to change your beliefs on whim in favor for a the more objectively logical truth. Anything that is personally subjective should never be static since anything subjective can be inherently wrong. So when something that is objectively true in the most logical of senses is shown instead of trying to poke holes at it with your *subjective* knowledge (which is a horrible thing to do because like I said your subjective knowledge could be wrong due to lacking knowledge), you should instead get rid of all your subjective knowledge that goes against the objective logical facts. In this case, your whole argument is subjective to what you want to believe in because its harder for you to comprehend the similarities in these systems due to your functions, the similarities of both of the systems in the objective sense should override any subjective thoughts you may have on the subject. 

Also understand that MBTI focuses on one way of perceiving the functions while Socionics is focused on another way of seeing the functions, they are both going off of JCF, so the objective truth is that JCF is the foundation of both of these systems, so by rule you must look for all similarities before you look for differences. The differences are obvious in how they organize it, in how they interpret it, but the similarities is more important because its how they correlate due to using the same fundamental system as their principle.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Again, really bad strategy to use typism to avoid answering. Can't you handle disagreement?


All right, backtrack then.

What you see as obvious is a lot different than what other people see as obvious. What you see as "logic" is a lot different than what some other people see as "logic." You've got your head up your ass if you don't think you're using the cognitive functions of your type to understand the theory. Don't even try disputing that you aren't using Ti, because you'll just prove yourself wrong. 

You're basically asking me to prove - not explain - socionics to you in a way that suits your own biased way of looking at the theory, and I said I wasn't willing to do that, because I probably couldn't do it using language that makes sense to you. And that _isn't _to say that my way isn't biased either - see, not typism. I might be wrong about socionics, might not - but I'm also not forcing you to look at it my way, like you seem to be doing to me. 

As far as disagreement goes, I'm fine with it, but cut the "typism" bullshit, anyone with half a brain would know that telling someone their own defaults set the way they look at something isn't typist, and doesn't make any comment on whether or not you've studied "theory." It's fine if we disagree. But I'm not sitting here all night debating with you if neither of us are going to change our opinions, on the pop fly that you learn something from it.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> I'm going to, the initial reason was to see what thought process you are using as the foundation of your subjective analysis. It helps me find the language in which I can present my information. Now that I know I can answer your questions.


Heh, your style was always ok for me, I find I can understand it well as it conveys things on a more abstract level nicely, I like to read your explanations in enneagram forum too, so don't worry about that.




> First I'll start with an analogy: You have two apples, one is half the size of the other. (...) Now you may say well its two apples no matter what making it two apples


No, I wouldn't have said that, it matters very much as to what exactly makes it two apples. Note that my approach to the kind of theories that are meant to relate to the real world uses a pretty reductionist logic. I'm not in favour of scientism in general, but when I believe that causal-deterministic reductionism fits a topic, I prefer to use that. (Oh, yeah, and I'm not supposed to be C-D in socionics, am I?) So in terms of that, I don't see an issue with the apple thing, it's just an object that's not actually what it looks like and so subjective speculation of categories based on what it looks like on a superficial level is not applicable.




> Therefore these two different ways of looking at the number of apples are both right but looked at from different perspectives, making it not right theoretically but right objectively.


I guess it's right in terms of what the goals are with the view. If the purpose is just to sort out apples from a basket that are too small (e.g. nobody would want to buy them), then a too small apple won't count as an apple at all. If the application is to eat it, then it counts as an apple. If the application is to kill your hunger and one normal sized apple would be required for that, then it counts as half an apple. If the purpose is to consider what makes an apple an apple, then either turn to psychology research on how human category perception works or basics of physics, chemistry and so on to explain what the object is. Etc.

Now how this relates to these MBTI/Socionics theories, can we decide in this objective way which system is right? The application is the same for both theories, that is, the purpose is to understand people correctly. So because the purpose is understanding something that exists in the world, it boils down to which system is a better fit for reality. There subjective theory and objective empiricism find each other 




> A cognitive function is how we process information, there are 8 different ways to process information which means there are 8 different ways fundamentally to interpret information, not one way being better or right then the other. That also answers your question on how two different interpreted systems based off of the same system can highly correlate with each other because they are different perspectives of the theory in question.


Yes, I *never* questioned that there is some correlation between the systems. The only thing I question is that they are the *exact same* system meaning 100% correspondance. And where it is not 100%, that is, where they differ, that needs to be taken into account too, some poster here said that it matters because it affects the whole of the system. I totally agree with that. Also, do we even know roughly as to how much the correlation is between the systems? Maybe it's just 50%? 50% usually implies something very different than e.g. 90%.

Btw, can you answer me about whether your fusing is a generic one only taking into account similarity and ignoring all differences? Or do you also attempt to fuse into your understanding the differences?

Anyway, "ways of processing information" is a nice general way to put things. A question is, are we sure there are only 8 ways of such? Are we sure that while making and using these general concise definitions of functions, we do not accidentally put two things together that are only correlated to a certain (less than 100%) degree?

You see, I keep harping on about correlations because it matters. Correlation doesn't equal cause and also when you observe correlations, you may fail to notice factors in the background that attribute to the causes of these observed correlations. With weak correlations, it is more likely that theory principles attempting to explain them do not actually fit the real workings of the observed subject in reality.

I'm going to, for once, give a concrete example as maybe it helps to show what I mean. There is an interpretation of Se that involves a very strong focus on intensity of direct sensory experience because Se is Extraverted Sensing. Then there is another interpretation of Se that treats it as an attitude to the empirical and the concrete, very strong focus on "what is", thus a very realist (but irrational) function. Do you think these two will always happen together for every person in the world who's typed as Se-dom? I'm curious to hear your answer.




> The first one is Socionics description of So from wikisocion, the second one is MBTIs description from cognitiveprocesses.com. I'm not seeing how everyone keeps implying they are different when its just them being worded different but stating the same thing.


I don't think they are talking about the same cognitive attitude. If you just look at how much you did not bold and then compare it to how much you bolded, the correspondence isn't even near 100%. Well I didn't really check as to what system you used to make the highlights because at first sight it wasn't apparent to me. Let me know if the intention was not to highlight the similarities.

Let's see also a few examples here...

Socionics: _Introverted Sensing is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail.
_& _This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states_ - You didn't bold these parts even though this is core to Si in socionis.

MBTI: _With introverted Sensing, there is often great attention to detail and getting a clear picture of goals and objectives and what is to happen._ - That is Se in Socionics. Si in Socionics just focuses on the dynamic internal sensations and doesn't really care for goals that are not in the moment.



> Also how two things can be different in interpretation but mean the same thing. Let's look at linguistics, how we have synonyms, words that have similar meanings so they can be used in favor of another which shares its meaning.


That's not a very useful analogy here. Words are not entire big systems trying to explain how people work in reality, meaning that there is a lot more involved than in this example of synonyms. Thus I disagree that MBTI and Socionics are synonyms.




> Also your positive and negative theories between the inferior and suggestive proves my theory on two different interpretations saying the same thing, because the words positive and negative are subjective words used in place to describe what the authors are describing.


"Positive" and "negative" are being rejected here as "subjective words"? :O Then what words are objective enough to not reject them? I'm not sure how this proves your idea on things being the same.




> MBTI stayed with how one function is used less than the other, showing all of the negative ramifications of the function towards the type, while socionics focuses on how the functions work in the individual focusing on all the positive ramifications.


No, Socionics descriptions tend to show more negatives about personalities and weaknesses of functions than MBTI ones do.

Also, it's said that politicians use this strategy of stating something that is not false on its own but omitting a few things that will make it false when included. That is, a statement is not about the actual truth if we reject/skip certain things. I don't believe that we should ignore parts that may show more about a theory than initially assumed.

It is really very clear. I'll try to use a concrete example, maybe that helps. Se-doms according to Jung's Chapter X reject Ni ideas strongly because Ni takes on a negative quality (which can be alleviated by going through Fe to access it, I believe Jung also said this somewhere). Socionics Se-doms on the other hand seek out Ni. Can you really argue that "seeking out" is the same attitude as "rejecting"? I'd like to hear how.

My point is that this is a contradiction between the two systems and one that leads to important consequences as socionics bases the ideas of duality in interrelations theory on the suggestive function a lot.




> Two different subjective analysis based off of two different interpretations coming from two different perspectives sharing the same system (JCF) as their fundamentals. Like I said before I stay away from all the subjectivity and focus solely on the objectivity of these two systems and their correlations.


I hope I managed to provide some objectivity too in the above example. Let me know.

What do you exactly mean by objectivity of the systems btw? Can you clarify so I can be sure I didn't misunderstand you here?




> What I will agree with you on is a principle can be subjective for it is the fundamental truth of which serves as the foundation of a system. Going off of that these two systems most obviously apparent principle which happens to be (JCF) being looked at from two different lenses. Never the less they share the same principle meaning there is an objective correlation (JCF) between the two when you only focus on their subjectivity to further your knowledge of the objective (Cognitive functions) In question. The principle therefore never changed but systems were built upon the same principle going in two different direction, making a correlation highly possible between the two.


The problem is, the principles are not the same, see above. Okay, some of them are the same, but the rest needs to be reconciled instead of ignoring it.




> Organize your mind means to be able to change your beliefs on whim in favor for a the more objectively logical truth.


Haha I tend to drive some people mad with my tendency to do this. They just see it as me suddenly changing my opinion on something in an unpredictable way, even though it's the result of consideration of how things are.




> Anything that is personally subjective should never be static since anything subjective can be inherently wrong.


So you reject use of Ti?  Ti is a static function in Socionics. Though yeah, Ti-creatives use it in a flexible manner... rhetorical question anyway.




> So when something that is objectively true in the most logical of senses is shown instead of trying to poke holes at it with your *subjective* knowledge (which is a horrible thing to do because like I said your subjective knowledge could be wrong due to lacking knowledge)


We will always lack knowledge and we will always be subjective to some degree, so we will be always wrong.




> you should instead get rid of all your subjective knowledge that goes against the objective logical facts.


Yes that's called science.

Also, my goal too.




> In this case, your whole argument is subjective to what you want to believe in because its harder for you to comprehend the similarities in these systems due to your functions, the similarities of both of the systems in the objective sense should override any subjective thoughts you may have on the subject.


Do I see a case of typism here... do not try to take seriously the prediction of my thought patterns just because I have a four-letter label in a typology system. That just doesn't work reliably enough. Certainly doesn't work in this case, have you forgotten (or maybe you didn't read that post of mine) what I said about how I initially approached Socionics study in a Positivist fashion? I was attempting to do a fusion of the systems for a couple of *months* last year. Then one day I suddenly realised I was ignoring the differences that should actually be taken into account. So yeah I then switched to Negativist style about Socionics. But trust me when I say I know how to focus on the similarities because I was doing that for a pretty long time. -.- I just learned to focus on the differences afterwards.




> Also understand that MBTI focuses on one way of perceiving the functions while Socionics is focused on another way of seeing the functions, they are both going off of JCF, so the objective truth is that JCF is the foundation of both of these systems, so by rule you must look for all similarities before you look for differences. The differences are obvious in how they organize it, in how they interpret it, but the similarities is more important because its how they correlate due to using the same fundamental system as their principle.


Okay, they were both inspired by Jung. What does that say about the subject being researched here? That subject is people, not Jung's abstract theory. So I find that subject (people) more relevant when focusing on similarities.

Correlations, as pointed out earlier, may not be just due to having the same underlying causal principles. I'll again give an example here. There is a few things enneagram tries to explain that are eerily similar to some things explained by JCF or socionics, but using entirely different principles to explain. Have you ever thought about that? 




LXPilot said:


> All right, backtrack then.
> 
> What you see as obvious is a lot different than what other people see as obvious. What you see as "logic" is a lot different than what some other people see as "logic." You've got your head up your ass if you don't think you're using the cognitive functions of your type to understand the theory. Don't even try disputing that you aren't using Ti, because you'll just prove yourself wrong.


You got your head up your ass if you think I just use Se and Ti and no other function.

Why would I dispute I'm using Ti though? I definitely prefer Ti a lot, never tried to state the opposite anywhere, I kind of lost track as to what you wanted to convey here with that prediction... a prediction that nicely failed at that.




> You're basically asking me to prove - not explain - socionics to you in a way that suits your own biased way of looking at the theory, and I said I wasn't willing to do that, because I probably couldn't do it using language that makes sense to you. And that _isn't _to say that my way isn't biased either - see, not typism. I might be wrong about socionics, might not - but I'm also not forcing you to look at it my way, like you seem to be doing to me.


Why do you not try and see if the language actually makes sense to me? 

As for pressuring you to see my way, well, I'm always open to the idea that I got things wrong, but when I'm pretty sure then strong arguments are needed, however nobody stops you from attempting to provide such strong arguments. And by that I don't mean any subjective accusations but logic strictly focused on the subject of the argument.




> As far as disagreement goes, I'm fine with it, but cut the "typism" bullshit, anyone with half a brain would know that telling someone their own defaults set the way they look at something isn't typist, and doesn't make any comment on whether or not you've studied "theory." It's fine if we disagree. But I'm not sitting here all night debating with you if neither of us are going to change our opinions, on the pop fly that you learn something from it.


It's very black-and-white typism to assume that someone can only use their dom/aux functions and never anything else resulting in definite inability to understand something. Don't you think so?

As for your last line, maybe I can learn something from it, but maybe you can too.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> It's very black-and-white typism to assume that someone can only use their dom/aux functions and never anything else resulting in definite inability to understand something. Don't you think so?


I didn't say that you can't use other functions. I said, point blank, you were biased towards your own. If you think biased means the same thing as "can only use," then there isn't anything left for me to tell you, since I never used those words. It's going to be hard to get me to understand how that isn't "black and white." 

I think what's more black and white is that this is leading absolutely nowhere, and wasting our time. I'm really only arguing with you now to prove that I'm not afraid to defend my positions, which is really pretty stupid, regardless of who did it "better." If you have a better topic of discussion, by all means throw it out, but I'm done with this one.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> I didn't say that you can't use other functions. I said, point blank, you were biased towards your own. If you think biased means the same thing as "can only use," then there isn't anything left for me to tell you, since I never used those words. It's going to be hard to get me to understand how that isn't "black and white."


Mainly this was the black-and-white statement from you which I didn't like:

_"and I said I wasn't willing to do that, because I probably couldn't do it using language that makes sense to you."

_Do you understand my issue now?



> I think what's more black and white is that this is leading absolutely nowhere, and wasting our time. I'm really only arguing with you now to prove that I'm not afraid to defend my positions, which is really pretty stupid, regardless of who did it "better." If you have a better topic of discussion, by all means throw it out, but I'm done with this one.


I'd believe you on your claim that you are not afraid to defend your positions if you were to actually answer my original question requiring reasoning. You keep evading that however so I don't believe you.

But of course, you are free to decide when to drop an argument, so if you want to do that, cool, just it will remain a fact that you could not attempt to defend your position and used really stupid typism to find an excuse for that.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

_itsme45_
The blind men touching the same elephant had totally different descriptions of the same thing but what they were essentially describing was the same. Its no use comparing my principle to yours if you are trying to understand the point of view. Understanding doesn't mean agree, you still haven't noted that. If you don't make the effort to understand a different point of view in all its respect then insert: "MASSIVE FACE PALM FAIL", since that is what close minded people are. 

Understanding doesn't mean agree, I'm obviously aware that we don't agree with the principles which makes it useless to try to convince each other since our arguments stem from different premises. 

http://personalitycafe.com/debate-forum/7390-avoiding-anger-debates.html


> ...This is the same as Western philosophy. However, there's another interesting component: prior to debating, the monks have to agree upon a common set of premises. If the other monk does not accept the same premises as you, you are not allowed to debate them. The only time debating with someone is productive is when you can acknowledge a common set of assumptions. If this does not happen, debating is pointless.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

_Radiant Truth_ 
The "blind men" are touching the same elephant or nothing at all

Socionics, MBTI and Jung's functions are suppose to come to a convergent truth since in the core principle, they are suppose to be describing the same 8 functions. In the end its either going to end up with the core principle being proven to be right, thus invalidating the incompatible differences within all the systems and likely new evidence will be added when that happens. However on the contrary, if the JCF principle is considered void, then that makes all three attempts void. 

The bottom line is either that the 4 objective and 4 subjective functions *exist*, in which case, MBTI & Socionics are compatible as the functions are the same. Or instead they are all wrong, wallowing in errors. They would then turnout to be horoscopes, thus taking them seriously becomes stupid, it wouldn't even be worth getting typed since the principle won't be bounded by a common reality.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Heh, your style was always ok for me, I find I can understand it well as it conveys things on a more abstract level nicely, I like to read your explanations in enneagram forum too, so don't worry about that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I made bold, is the core reason why we disagree. You see at as which system is more right while I see it as them both being equally right but headed in two different directions sharing the same fundamentals. When I say they are sharing the same principles I'm staying that JCF is the principle, its the objectively obviously apparent principle both of these systems share. In what directions they go means nothing as long as the principle is the same, if the principle is the same which in this case it is since I'm referring to the principle as any being JCF then a correlation exist. Which is why I said when learning about these two different systems focus primarily on cognitive functions and understand that the different things they are saying are just two different parts of the same truth hence a fusion happens. You notice how you started saying when studying the apples its what is being questioned that changes the perspective on how to view the apples, that's basically what I'm staying what MBTI and Socionics is doing when dealing with JCF, they are looking at the object in question following the same principle as a guide, a starting part but only starts to branch off and differ due to what they are using the functions for as a basis for their studies. They are both typologies, just two typologies sharing the same principle but focusing on different goals.

The correlation between the two systems if you understand that they are studying the same thing from two different perspectives. One is on one side of the table viewing it from a different angle than the other who is on a different side of the table. What they both perceive is right, but their angles are different so they're going to acquire different knowledge. My angle is different because I'm sitting at a different table on the second floor with a ground floor view, so I can see what they are both seeing and why the differences are coming to be. I decided to go more in depth because I'm interested in how different perspectives can be so different but essentially see the same thing. So I ask both of them what is it that they are seeing (studying they're works), to get two different answers as I'm suspecting. Since I saw it from the aerial view and now that I'm on ground level I decide to walk to each of their point of views to acquire more of what are they see in, and seeing how they correlate so I can explain the differences in perspective but similarities in principle causing two different interpretations which just is them stating two different parts of the same truth (what they are both perceiving, the initial principle, for this analogy it will be a golden statue of a samurai) to the nice girl (you) I'm having dinner with who asked me to explain to her what they are seeing and why are they arguing. As you can see I focus on the similarities first by starting at the fundamental principle being shared, then once all the similarities are in place I can see why the differences come about due to different perspective but saying two different parts of the same truth, which helps correlate the two and explain how the differences are speaking about the same thing.

BTW Jungs cognitive function theory was the product that ensued due to studying people, so studying people was his principle. MBTI and Socionics use JCF to study people, so studying people is the product which ensues by studying JCF. So what the initial principle is happens not be studying people for these two systems like it was for JCF but instead the opposite of what Jung did, they are going backwards from his works to his principle, so their initial principle is JCF in which the product that ensues is studying people. By using studying people as the same principle for all three you are using logic that is hurting your perspective plus you're staying a paradox. In order for two systems to use one system as a principle they have to use that principle to pursue their goals. Jungs goal was to type people off of the way he studied them while these two principles use Kings typing process to find a way to study people, they were headed in different directions, so you can't use Jungs principle of his studies as their principles because their principles are Jungs principles, their principle is Jung cognitive functions. By thinking other wise you get make a logical flaw, which hurts your perspective.

I don't get rid of Ti, on the contrary I use Ti to analyze so many things that I'm able to understand that anything that my Ti produces can be essentially wrong since it is a subjective analyzing function. Every introverted thinker has a principle in which we build our internal logical systems upon on, not every Ti user knows what their principle is tho which makes them rigid in their belief system because to them the logic is so right. I know myself so well I know my Ti's initial principle, which is anything that is subjectively produced through Ti can be wrong for being subjective, so I focus on objective logical truths to build any of my systems on which all share the same principle, that I can be wrong due to the subjectivity of the nature of my Ti, I turn my Ti on itself to be able to question itself by using objective logical truths and new found knowledge to prove if I'm right or wrong. I only go to that level if I see a flaw in a system, I have to ask myself is the flaw the system in question or my subjective analysis, hence I let Ne Look for all possibilities in where I can be wrong or where the system in question can be wrong, I study all the possibilities to look for the answer. If the answer is my subjective analysis being wrong then t gets discarded after finding out why exactly it was wrong then adapting the new knowledge to my internal. If the opposite happens and the system is wrong I set on to correct it by finding its flaws and spring the new found knowledge to go off of in similar future circumstances.

Enneagram can only be compared to any of these two systems to a certain degree because it does not share the same principles. Enneagrams principles are similar to Jungs, which is the study of people, but Jung and Enneagram focus on two different parts of the psyche. Enneagram does not use Jung as its initial basis for its fundamentals so therefore it can not be called in question to debunk or be compared to MBTI or So ionics, since the principles are clearly different. The only thing enneagram can cmpare itself is to Jung and that's only as far as people being studied, but one focuses on motivations and behavior while the other focuses cognitive processes, completely two different subjects. MBTI and Socionics Use the same system as their principle and similar goals (to study people) even though the goals are approached by two different perspectives, so the correlation is much stronger than the enneagram/Jung comparison, since both of those systems are focused on two different parts of then psych while mbti/Socionics is focused on the same part of the psych.

I don't mean to use typism, but I don't see you using positivism, if these two concepts are static, I think you were always a negativist but never realized it, you seem to have a hard time to get rid of all of your subjective knowledge in favor of looking for similarities, essentially you base everything you learn and compare of off your subjective tools of analysis and you have a really hard time getting rid of those tools in favor f the tools the objective logical truths can offer you. You rely to much on your subjective knowledge, and that's where we differ. My Ne allows me to understand that anything can be changed, and my subjective analysis can be wrong, because my Ne can see all possibilities hence showing me how something can be wrong, how something can be right, how to see from every perspective and where people come from/start off with their logical or beliefs. So your four letters may be wrong And it would be illogical to base what I said on you being an ESTP which is not what I said, instead I just said you have a harder time comprehending due to your functions (you assumed I was talking about Se-TI but instead I was going off of the fact that you definitely aren't an Ne user at all in any possible way by the way your thought process works. Its easy to see how your thought process works by the syntax you use and the semantics underneath all of your writing. If your going to say nobody (not saying you are going to say this but just in case you) can tell someone's thought process like that then you definitely need to read up on Ne. Ne actually tracks thought processes more than any other function, for us as a leading function it comes natural to understand how a person thinks especially if (ILEs/ENTPs) we have Ti to analyze these thought processes and store away for a long time. Also its the reason why its not hard for me to track the thought processes of all these authors and their works, along with directors and theirs. Anyone can analyze somebody and get a gist of someones thought process but no one does it as well and natural as the Ne dominant type. So yes I can use typism because I'm not claiming what type you are, I'm clearly stating what type you aren't and how it can affect your reasoning process. Its not to say that I can't explain to you in your language because that's another side effect of being an Ne Dom I can change the way I word things so its easier to express what I want to say to different thought processes as clearly as possible. I'm understanding the correlations very well because of being a Ne-Ti user and I understand an Ne-Te user can also understand the correlations very well but not because they are following thought processes but instead because they can see the "homologies between systems".

Also you are right differences should be taken into account only after you know all the similarities and accepted that they are stating the same thing from two different perspectives, then you can focus on the differences understanding that difference in languages they are using to describe (not official languages but the words they use to describe the same thing in different directions). Also linguistics is a perfect example because within it you can see the differences in thought processes by the synonyms the authors use that make their systems sound so different but speak about the same thing. The syntax may be different but the semantics are the same, making the systems by definition synonyms of each other since the share the same principle (JCF). I understand why you couldn't see that though. What is objectively true is that both systems use JCF as their fundamentals, that's the objective truth, those are the truths I focus on, not my subjective interpretation because I can be wrong. If you never learned about either MBTI and Socionics, and the authors of both worked together to make their Two systems into one system and published it, you would've read it and adapted that system to your subjective analysis because you wouldn't have mbti or Socionics to go off of. Hence your whole reasoning to try and look for the differences is subjective to your analysis, and your using your subjective knowledge to look for differences instead on making the objective logical truths your fundamentals for your subjective analysis, you instead make your subjective truths the fundamentals of your objective analysis which is a logical flaw, and is corrupting your internal system. This is what I mean by organizing your thoughts n the more logical way, not your logic but logic in of itself. To prove it you said MBTI focuses more on the positives than the negatives which is subjective to you because it is what you perceive, I perceive it totally different which is subjective to me. I see Socionics pointing out how functions work in an individual, while mbti points to how a function doesn't work in an individual hence putting it in order from most used to least used (which the objective fact is how they order it, the subjective side of it is why they ordered it in that way).

I didn't bold the parts that seemed obviously apparent, I bolded the parts that didn't seem apparent to force your mind to look for the similarities, it was a manipulation tactic I learned growing up debating with people. Also both of the Se descriptions are saying the same thing, getting the most out of the world through sensory perception. They are the same function like I've been stating but from two different perspectives. If someone was to come to me and say the way "the way I process my mind is by focusing on the intensity of the *direct* sensory perception" I can then say that the person in question focuses on the concrete (world), needs empirical evidence from a scientific point of view, and focuses very strongly on "what is" because focusing strong on the intensity from direct sensory perception is essentially the same as focusing very strongly on what they can perceive through their sensory perception which is focusing o "what is" because "what is" is what we acquire through sensory perception.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

_Radiant Truth_
As a "researcher" you've formed this natural biased outlook:
_Researchers are inclined to perceive Pragmatists as narrow-minded and somewhat uninteresting. _http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/114912-researchers-club-nts.html
Pragmatists have logic that must be firmly grounded in reality hence they are frustrated when intuition is brought up, especially if its their role function. I had the same argument with an SiTe member in my early days on this site, I didn't really get why she found me all over the place with my perception. Whilst equally I found her perception rigidly grounded, to be fair well Si prefers the accuracy of reality. What you are feeling is the classic battle of the conflicting "role functions" as socionics would put it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> _Radiant Truth_
> As a "researcher" you've formed this natural biased outlook:
> _Researchers are inclined to perceive Pragmatists as narrow-minded and somewhat uninteresting. _http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/114912-researchers-club-nts.html
> Pragmatists have logic that must be firmly grounded in reality hence they are frustrated when intuition is brought up, especially if its their role function. I had the same argument with an SiTe member in my early days on this site, I didn't really get why she found me all over the place with my perception. Whilst equally I found her perception rigidly grounded, to be fair well Si prefers the accuracy of reality. What you are feeling is the classic battle of the conflicting "role functions" as socionics would put it.


You're right, I completely understand that, but once a debate only gues do far you really have to point out the differences in the thought processes so it's understandable why certain people have a more difficult time comprehending certain things then other people. I'm glad you brought it up, because it's nice to see theories in action especially when I'm in the middle of it all :tongue:.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Er, this thread is in the socionics subforum, have a look around it, you should be able to open a thread in the socionics forum.


Well in that case, I should have said _herp derp de doo.

_(and thanks)


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> _itsme45_
> The blind men touching the same elephant had totally different descriptions of the same thing but what they were essentially describing was the same. Its no use comparing my principle to yours if you are trying to understand the point of view. Understanding doesn't mean agree, you still haven't noted that. If you don't make the effort to understand a different point of view in all its respect then insert: "MASSIVE FACE PALM FAIL", since that is what close minded people are.


Why do you even mention the possibility that I'm not making an effort to understand your viewpoint?

Why do you think I equate understanding with agreement?




> Understanding doesn't mean agree, I'm obviously aware that we don't agree with the principles which makes it useless to try to convince each other since our arguments stem from different premises.


What are your premises that differ from mine?




> http://personalitycafe.com/debate-forum/7390-avoiding-anger-debates.html


I've read the URL name of this link and had a glimpse in the thread, well I don't have any need to manage anger here, this is just a debate. If anyone else feels like they need it, by all means feel free to read it, it's a good thread IMO.




Boolean11 said:


> Socionics, MBTI and Jung's functions are suppose to come to a convergent truth since in the core principle, they are suppose to be describing the same 8 functions. In the end its either going to end up with the core principle being proven to be right, thus invalidating the incompatible differences within all the systems and likely new evidence will be added when that happens. However on the contrary, if the JCF principle is considered void, then that makes all three attempts void.


Yeah, that is fine. My point is about how the two systems differ at some important points.




> The bottom line is either that the 4 objective and 4 subjective functions *exist*, in which case, MBTI & Socionics are compatible as the functions are the same. Or instead they are all wrong, wallowing in errors. They would then turnout to be horoscopes, thus taking them seriously becomes stupid, it wouldn't even be worth getting typed since the principle won't be bounded by a common reality.


Yeah no disagreement here. I do believe though that there is something to the functions, but certain theory principles are questionable and I do question them.




Boolean11 said:


> _Radiant Truth_
> As a "researcher" you've formed this natural biased outlook:
> _Researchers are inclined to perceive Pragmatists as narrow-minded and somewhat uninteresting. _http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/114912-researchers-club-nts.html


How about drop such crappy biased outlooks?




> Pragmatists have logic that must be firmly grounded in reality hence they are frustrated when intuition is brought up, especially if its their role function. I had the same argument with an SiTe member in my early days on this site, I didn't really get why she found me all over the place with my perception. Whilst equally I found her perception rigidly grounded, to be fair well Si prefers the accuracy of reality. What you are feeling is the classic battle of the conflicting "role functions" as socionics would put it.


True, my logic is usually grounded/dependent on reality. However I believe rigidity vs. open-mindedness doesn't depend on functions. Curiousity and a flexible mind is something else, not functions.

I'll show you a link that has a very good point regarding this: 
Socionics - the16types.info - What IEs are not

It says here that Ne is not open-mindedness.

I'm really really against such typism.

Also, I don't mind Intuition at all, I just want to be able to link intuitive concepts to reality.




Radiant Truth said:


> What I made bold, is the core reason why we disagree.


In the Si descriptions? Let me also mention, MBTI Si involves the past, and Socionics Si is more in the moment.




> You see at as which system is more right while I see it as them both being equally right but headed in two different directions sharing the same fundamentals.


How do you see them both as equally right? Do you mean both have about the same amount of truth in them while still lacking in some way?

Some fundamentals are shared, I'm not disputing that. I do see similarities. I did say I ONLY saw the similarities for several months. Do you understand? Several months.

What I'm pointing out is that there are certain important differences that make a big difference in some conclusions of the systems and also they make quite some difference in terms of matching theory to reality.
Basically, I am not debating that there is a correlation, I am debating the idea that there is nothing contradicting when fusing them!




> When I say they are sharing the same principles I'm staying that JCF is the principle, its the objectively obviously apparent principle both of these systems share. In what directions they go means nothing as long as the principle is the same


Can you elaborate on as to why it means nothing if they are going in different directions? I understand you are saying that it is enough that some core principles are the same. But why do you not care about the rest, this is what I'd like to hear about more.




> Which is why I said when learning about these two different systems focus primarily on cognitive functions and understand that the different things they are saying are just two different parts of the same truth hence a fusion happens.


That's what I did for a few months with Socionics then I realized I made a mistake in ignoring certain principles and definitions that fundamentally differed from MBTI ones.




> You notice how you started saying when studying the apples its what is being questioned that changes the perspective on how to view the apples, that's basically what I'm staying what MBTI and Socionics is doing when dealing with JCF, they are looking at the object in question following the same principle as a guide, a starting part but only starts to branch off and differ due to what they are using the functions for as a basis for their studies. They are both typologies, just two typologies sharing the same principle but focusing on different goals.


Yes, that's right, but my problem is that even the information processing aspect of the functions doesn't match enough between the two theories and also the relations between certain functions don't. I understand fine that due to the goal of describing social situations, Socionics tries to emphasize external things more than MBTI, that's not the problem.




> The correlation between the two systems if you understand that they are studying the same thing from two different perspectives. One is on one side of the table viewing it from a different angle than the other who is on a different side of the table. What they both perceive is right, but their angles are different so they're going to acquire different knowledge.


Not that much right, as they are missing a lot of it... context matters a lot in interpretation. But yeah, we can say that they both see about the same amount of things. Though, that's not actually correct, as Socionics attempts to grab a bigger scope than MBTI.

Also, if the angles are so different, there could be hardly any similarities and yet still describing the same thing, so just the amount of similarities is not going to be very helpful in building a bigger understanding. The differences also have to be processed to achieve that goal.

You see, I actually still do some kind of fusing, I just decided to look at the differences too, because I found the similarities was not enough truth. I kind of look at the whole MBTI/Socionics/whatnot thing from a further removed perspective and so I see not only similarities. That perspective btw is from the viewpoint of cognitive neuroscience/psychology.




> My angle is different because I'm sitting at a different table on the second floor with a ground floor view, so I can see what they are both seeing and why the differences are coming to be. I decided to go more in depth because I'm interested in how different perspectives can be so different but essentially see the same thing.


Well when I mentioned enneagram that was one example of that... enneagram is a loooot different but still looks at the same thing (people).




> Since I saw it from the aerial view and now that I'm on ground level I decide to walk to each of their point of views to acquire more of what are they see in


Yes but wouldn't it be easier to directly "walk to" the actual thing too, not just subjective viewpoints of it?




> As you can see I focus on the similarities first by starting at the fundamental principle being shared, then once all the similarities are in place I can see why the differences come about due to different perspective but saying two different parts of the same truth, which helps correlate the two and explain how the differences are speaking about the same thing.


So when are you going to look at the differences more deeply? I would really like you to directly address my question about "seeking out" vs "rejection" of inferior function in my previous post.




> BTW Jungs cognitive function theory was the product that ensued due to studying people, so studying people was his principle. MBTI and Socionics use JCF to study people, so studying people is the product which ensues by studying JCF.


Yeah, well it's a framework for doing that, but sometimes it's better to use multiple frameworks in parallel.




> By using studying people as the same principle for all three you are using logic that is hurting your perspective plus you're staying a paradox.


What is the paradox there, would you elaborate on this? How does it hurt my perspective if I focus on actual people's workings?




> In order for two systems to use one system as a principle they have to use that principle to pursue their goals. Jungs goal was to type people off of the way he studied them while these two principles use Kings typing process to find a way to study people, they were headed in different directions, so you can't use Jungs principle of his studies as their principles because their principles are Jungs principles, their principle is Jung cognitive functions. By thinking other wise you get make a logical flaw, which hurts your perspective.


Ehm, who would be "King" or "Kings"? Can you re-read this part btw, I think you might have made a typo so I'd like to get that cleared up to make sure I follow your reasoning.




> I don't get rid of Ti


That was a crappy geeky joke.




> Enneagram can only be compared to any of these two systems to a certain degree because it does not share the same principles.


Oh, you actually can see differences too, not just similarities. Negativist much?  (Again, crappy geeky joke.)




> Enneagrams principles are similar to Jungs, which is the study of people, but Jung and Enneagram focus on two different parts of the psyche. Enneagram does not use Jung as its initial basis for its fundamentals so therefore it can not be called in question to debunk or be compared to MBTI or Socionics, since the principles are clearly different.


Yes but it studies the same thing, people, so comparison may be useful.




> The only thing enneagram can cmpare itself is to Jung


Why just Jung? Why not MBTI or Socionics? Aren't these all just systems being equal by the nature of being theoretical systems?




> and that's only as far as people being studied, but one focuses on motivations and behavior while the other focuses cognitive processes, completely two different subjects.


What if they are related somehow? Nobody thought of this "what if" yet?




> MBTI and Socionics Use the same system as their principle and similar goals (to study people) even though the goals are approached by two different perspectives, so the correlation is much stronger than the enneagram/Jung comparison, since both of those systems are focused on two different parts of then psych while mbti/Socionics is focused on the same part of the psych.


How did you determine it is *actually* different parts of the mind? Related to previous question.




> I don't mean to use typism, but I don't see you using positivism


You ignore or forgot that I wrote about it in the *past tense*. I said, this Positivist approach was last year. Got it now?




> if these two concepts are static, I think you were always a negativist but never realized it


I explicitly stated that I do tend to be a Negativist in most things by default. There are clearly exceptions to this rule though, such as my initial study of Socionics last year. Note, last year is not this year.




> you seem to have a hard time to get rid of all of your subjective knowledge


As if anyone was perfect in this regard... this is just a human thing, nobody has eternal and unlimited wisdom. Not even Jung btw. All we can do is try and I do try.  

(Really, doesn't Socionics claim SeTi is the most objective realist?... How about using some positive stereotyping too here )




> My Ne allows me to understand that anything can be changed, and my subjective analysis can be wrong, because my Ne can see all possibilities hence showing me how something can be wrong, how something can be right, how to see from every perspective and where people come from/start off with their logical or beliefs.


Cool. Just don't forget that much of this is not exclusive to Ne-doms.




> So your four letters may be wrong And it would be illogical to base what I said on you being an ESTP which is not what I said, instead I just said you have a harder time comprehending due to your functions (you assumed I was talking about Se-TI but instead I was going off of the fact that you definitely aren't an Ne user at all in any possible way by the way your thought process works.


Yeah I'm Se/Ni > Ne/Si, kind of true.

However it's a crazy assumption to make that I'd have a harder time comprehending whatever intellectual topic just because of not being a "Ne user". I think that sort of stuff is much more related to IQ.




> Its easy to see how your thought process works by the syntax you use and the semantics underneath all of your writing.


Cool, you're a real Seer / Prophet.

Okay, so of course, some ways of thinking can indeed be deduced to a degree. It's another matter about how much data is available from which to make such conclusions.

Fun fact: on a socionics forum I was declared to be ILE based on the way I spoke and many of the people did not want to see that they might be wrong. I said I didn't think I used Ne that much but they thought my style was "NT". Lol.

That of course included ILE's too, some of them thought I was ILE too *shrug*

Conclusion: just because you are Ne-dom it doesn't mean you can't make mistakes in analysis.




> If your going to say nobody (not saying you are going to say this but just in case you) can tell someone's thought process like that then you definitely need to read up on Ne.


I don't need you to state your assumptions about me. Keep them to yourself.




> Anyone can analyze somebody and get a gist of someones thought process but no one does it as well and natural as the Ne dominant type. So yes I can use typism because I'm not claiming what type you are, I'm clearly stating what type you aren't and how it can affect your reasoning process.


Well what you can say is the following; based on the data so far I seem X type / don't seem X type.




> Also you are right differences should be taken into account only after you know all the similarities...


Done that part last year.




> ...and accepted that they are stating the same thing from two different perspectives


Well sure they talk about the same subject, people and come from the same origin (Jung).




> ...then you can focus on the differences understanding that difference in languages they are using to describe (not official languages but the words they use to describe the same thing in different directions).


I don't think it's just verbal differences.




> Hence your whole reasoning to try and look for the differences is subjective to your analysis...


Well, many people agree with me on the idea that there are differences. At least I've seen others point out differences too, on this forum too. Look at Aleksei/aetrivex article for example.

Link: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ing-mbti-functions-socionics-im-elements.html




> To prove it you said MBTI focuses more on the positives than the negatives which is subjective to you because it is what you perceive


I tend to see people saying MBTI focuses more on the positive and Socionics on the negative in type descriptions and I find it coincides with what I see myself. Now whether that is subjectivity or not...

But sure, in the context of the inferior function MBTI does focus on the negative attitude, and this is exactly what I also said...




> I perceive it totally different which is subjective to me. I see Socionics pointing out how functions work in an individual, while mbti points to how a function doesn't work in an individual hence putting it in order from most used to least used (which the objective fact is how they order it, the subjective side of it is why they ordered it in that way).


This is not a direct answer to my question about inferior function role differences in the two systems. 

Also, both MBTI and Socionics do point out weaknesses in the inferior function, that is not the point here however. The point is the individual's behaviour in seeking or avoiding it. How can someone seek and avoid the same thing at the same time? Answer?




> I didn't bold the parts that seemed obviously apparent, I bolded the parts that didn't seem apparent to force your mind to look for the similarities, it was a manipulation tactic I learned growing up debating with people.


Really, tactic? Didn't work.




> Also both of the Se descriptions are saying the same thing, getting the most out of the world through sensory perception. They are the same function like I've been stating but from two different perspectives. If someone was to come to me and say the way "the way I process my mind is by focusing on the intensity of the *direct* sensory perception" I can then say that the person in question focuses on the concrete (world), needs empirical evidence from a scientific point of view, and focuses very strongly on "what is" because focusing strong on the intensity from direct sensory perception is essentially the same as focusing very strongly on what they can perceive through their sensory perception which is focusing o "what is" because "what is" is what we acquire through sensory perception.


Have you tried to look at it from the opposite? If someone focuses on the "what is in the here and now" (Se), will that someone inevitably strongly seek out intensity of the direct sensory perception (also Se)? In your opinion, is the answer *yes* or *no*? I'm curious to hear from you on this.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Finally you appear to see what we see, its either the 8 functions described by Carl Jung exist, thus in that assumption we regard MBTI, Socionics and JFC functions as being the same. All the functions are the same, any differences are more of the problem of the "blind men describing the same elephant". Else if the core objective principle is wrong (the existence of the 8 functions), then its not even worth being typed all the theories are wallowed in useless subjectivity.

Then put short, somebody can't be an mbti ISTJs and a socionics ISTjs, without damaging the integrity of the cognitive functions principle. Yes a person may exhibit bahaviour that may not be inline with their stereotyped cognitive processes, but that would be more of a flaw on MBTI or Socionics, not the cognitive functions themselves if they are proven to be objectively true.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Finally you appear to see what we see, its either the 8 functions described by Carl Jung exist, thus in that assumption we regard MBTI, Socionics and JFC functions as being the same. All the functions are the same, any differences are more of the problem of the "blind men describing the same elephant". Else if the core objective principle is wrong (the existence of the 8 functions), then its not even worth being typed all the theories are wallowed in useless subjectivity.
> 
> Then put short, somebody can't be an mbti ISTJs and a socionics ISTjs, without damaging the integrity of the cognitive functions principle. Yes a person may exhibit bahaviour that may not be inline with their stereotyped cognitive processes, but that would be more of a flaw on MBTI or Socionics, not the cognitive functions themselves if they are proven to be true objectively true.


I think I saw it before too, just hard to avoid misunderstandings at times 

Ok, so, when I said there is something to the functions I don't mean there must be 8 of them, my notion of the possibility in these functions is a bit more vague than that.

So, taking this into account that I allow for more things than just there being 8 discrete functions, it is possible someone's SiTe in one theory and TiSe in another and yes this would also mean the integrity of the original 8-function principle is violated.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

> Socionics, MBTI and Jung's functions are suppose to come to a convergent truth since in the core principle, they are suppose to be describing the same 8 functions.


I see it more that they are each describing different aspects of a person's personality. They just use the same labels though.



> The blind men touching the same elephant had totally different descriptions of the same thing but what they were essentially describing was the same.


 @_Boolean11_
I disagree that the blind men were describing the same thing (elephant). Instead, they were describing different things (elephant legs, elephant ears, elephant tail). Yet, they were thinking that everyone was describing the same thing. An elephant ear is not essentially an elephant tail, and neither are they an elephant. At least I don't see how?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

alionsroar said:


> I see it more that they are each describing different aspects of a person's personality. They just use the same labels though.


Actually, that's part of it yes. Some of it describes different aspects, some of it tries to explain the same aspect with different rules.




> I disagree that the blind men were describing the same thing (elephant). Instead, they were describing different things (elephant legs, elephant ears, elephant tail). Yet, they were thinking that everyone was describing the same thing. An elephant ear is not essentially an elephant tail, and neither are they an elephant. At least I don't see how?


Well it's the same thing in terms of it's all parts of an elephant, but that's actually a very good point, we can't be sure if it's even parts of an elephant and not totally independent objects... In this case though, it's the same thing in terms of that it's a person's mind that's "examined". But then, if we don't examine it directly and just examine theories instead (as @Radiant Truth suggests), then they could be independent objects


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Well it's the same thing in terms of it's all parts of an elephant, but that's actually a very good point, we can't be sure if it's even parts of an elephant and not totally independent objects... In this case though, it's the same thing in terms of that it's a person's mind that's "examined". But then, if we don't examine it directly and just examine theories instead (as @_Radiant Truth_ suggests), then they could be independent objects


Ah right so this whole thing is about some people examining elephant tail (socionics), elephant ear (MBT) and saying well they are both grey (new supposedly objective perspective), so grey is the fundamental property of elephant (person).

While I look at parts separately and say, ah that looks like elephant tail, let's talk about that and what it does and later we will talk about the elephant ear.

I am more interested in how things behave externally, (Socionics Te) than tying everything together to create one unifying theory describing how things are logically structured (Socionics Ti).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

alionsroar said:


> Ah right so this whole thing is about some people examining elephant tail (socionics), elephant ear (MBT) and saying well they are both grey (new *supposedly* objective perspective), so grey is the fundamental property of elephant (person).


I highlighted the word I liked the most.




> While I look at parts separately and say, ah that looks like elephant tail, let's talk about that and what it does and later we will talk about the elephant ear.
> 
> I am more interested in how things behave externally, (Socionics Te) than tying everything together to create one unifying theory describing how things are logically structured (Socionics Ti).


Yea that's a pretty sensible approach when the tools are not good enough to make empirically falsifiable theories


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

_alionsroar_

You should never take metaphors literary, understanding the principle is all that matters. The elephant's totality is the principle, they (the blind men) all think they have an accurate description of the same thing in its "totality" (each going by their world view): the thing they are all unaware is that it belongs to the same beast. They find it difficult to accept each other's descriptions, hence the argument, since they can't tell whether what they were being told was the truth or not. 

The elephant in this principle is the existence of those 8 cognitive functions. If that exists, then a convergent true has to happen else it means that they were all wrong since the principle doesn't exist.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> The elephant in this principle is the existence of those 8 cognitive functions. If that exists, then a convergent true has to happen else it means that they were all wrong since the principle doesn't exist.


Why is it impossible for just one of the systems to be right and the others wrong?

edit: Also, why is understanding the principle the only thing that matters?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

alionsroar said:


> Why is it impossible for just one of the systems to be right and the others wrong?
> 
> edit: Also, why is understanding the principle the only thing that matters?


Why understand "principles"? Metaphors derp! If you over analyse a metaphor then is bound to be wrong since it doesn't/can never accurately translate the principle.

Duh, paradoxes??? They can't all be right, if they share an objective premises, one has to be true (a convergent truth must occur) or the "objective premises" has to be false.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> Why understand "principles"? Metaphors derp! If you over analyse a metaphor then is bound to be wrong since it doesn't/can never accurately translate the principle.
> 
> Duh, paradoxes??? They can't all be right, if they share an objective premises, one has to be true (a convergent truth must occur) or the "objective premises" has to be false.


How do you know there are 8 cognitive processes then? I thought Jung only had four - N, S, T, F which had different orientations (introverted or extraverted).
Also, what does derp mean?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

alionsroar said:


> How do you know there are 8 cognitive processes then?
> Also, what does derp mean?


Well that is "assumption" all the theories are anchored on. 

Urban dictionary???Let me google that for you


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

post deleted - i was getting too off topic


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

*bump* Waitin' for a few answers to my questions hahah  Honestly though, I'm really curious.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> *bump* Waitin' for a few answers to my questions hahah  Honestly though, I'm really curious.


Usually people respond when they have something negative


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Usually people respond when they have something negative


So there is full agreement now


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> So there is full agreement now


Now that would be pushing it, its quite impossible to reach that


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Now that would be pushing it, its quite impossible to reach that


Yea I was jokin' =)


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Man those font colors are really distracting. Anyway, I think it's great that the original post is comparing and contrasting the functions. Although for MBTI the descriptions are usually what people go for over the functions making the comparison would bare very little in my opinion.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

MNiS said:


> Man those font colors are really distracting. Anyway, I think it's great that the original post is comparing and contrasting the functions. Although for MBTI the descriptions are usually what people go for over the functions making the comparison would bare very little in my opinion.


o.o idk, the MBTI ones tend to make less and less sense to me...


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> o.o idk, the MBTI ones tend to make less and less sense to me...


Yeah me too... I think MBTI functional descriptions are there for coherency and the types would seem arbitrary without at least _some_ functional descriptions. So I think that's why there are some good descriptions. Ultimately though I think comparing Socionics elements to MBTI functions is just going to unnecessarily confuse a heck of a lot of people.


----------

