# IEE!!!! I tell ya!



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

<.< thats the reaction of @Inguz and he has a point.

I may not be the most social or merry person out there (yuck, makes me sick thinking about being social..all that superficial shit ppl say), HOWEVER :shocked: IEE fits me the most from socionics and its weird.

The I vs E thing, as I said I'm not social, but I need mental stimulation to stay afloat and the main source is by talking about stuff with people, mainly on the forums (MBTI ISFP and suck at verbal language, sue me). I also like and need to have people around, topics to take apart and discuss, want to constantly share my findings and the stuff I get obsessed about, negative and skeptical often cynical, but despite life sucking ballz, there is always something to learn and a good side to stuff imo.

 I used to get a kick of energy from collage classes where open discussion of the topic was encouraged...basically i talked most of the time with the professor and some other colleagues that were in on the whole thing, not just this, same with english class (foreign language for me), all psychology classes and basically with anything I had an interest in. I mean seriously talking and debating about interesting stuff is a load of fun.

I need stimulation or I get bored, boredom = pain and that will make me grouchy and drain all my energy. Parties aren't fun precisely because there is no one to sit down with and have a chat about some odd topic, I get bored at parties, superficial socializing bores me.

The following description sort of describes me perfectly, again I emphasize my lack of social side, but I do know a large number of varied individuals from various places and backgrounds....I only consider a very few...friends:

Socionics Types: IEE-ENFp

 could it be I'm ISFP-IEE? WTF!? ...or does this make me extroverted now? Come to think of it...it does. So is that ESFP now then? W8 Se dom makes no sense.

@[email protected] so fucking confused.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Take it with a grain of salt. Look for something like 80% fit versus PERFECT. 
These are ideas. It's unlikely something is going to fit you word for word.

That being said, all types require mental stimulation. That has nothing to do with extrovert/introvert. Introverts like having friends to bat ideas around with too. 
Introversion/Extroversion is all about where your consciousness is oriented.
SOCIAL introversion/extroversion (associated with what people normally go for when they classify themselves) is stuff like "Are you energized or drained from prolonged socializing?"

There's a lot of rumors regarding Se. Just like all cognitive functions I guess.
People think Se -> wild parties, constantly going out, no need to think
Or something.
Which I highly doubt. I'm sure there are quite a few Ses that love it, but it would be a stretch to say ALL Ses love it.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Moop said:


> Take it with a grain of salt. Look for something like 80% fit versus PERFECT.
> These are ideas. It's unlikely something is going to fit you word for word.
> 
> That being said, all types require mental stimulation. That has nothing to do with extrovert/introvert. Introverts like having friends to bat ideas around with too.
> ...


This is not MBTI.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Inguz said:


> This is not MBTI.


Socionics =/= MBTI. But he mentioned MBTI and that's what I know about.
Do you have any tips for someone whose MBTI type seems to completely contradict their socionics type?
It seems rare that for all the letters to be different. Usually there are quite a few that are similar.

Anyway check this out. It's off another forum. Can't say I know enough to verify how accurate they are.



> Here's my *MBTI to Socionics type conversion chart (if it actually works for some people, then that's great.)
> 
> These conversions are based on similar associations shared by both systems. The two associations I'm taking into account for their relevance are that (a) "decisive" or Se/Ni valuing types in Socionics are similar to Js in MBTI, and "judicious" or Ne/Si valuing types in Socionics are similar to Ps in MBTI, and that (b) an MBTI type known to lead in a certain function (S, N, F or T) might at least have that preference in their ego and as a strength. I believe that criterion (b) is a somewhat more precarious association, and seemingly to others I'm sure just as so with (a), nonetheless relevant enough to utilize in my theoretical case. So without comparing type descriptions, but comparing the criteria of N/S to N/S strengths, F/T to F/T strengths, and J/D to P/J tendency, the following chart could very well have some use. This yields four viable Socionics types.
> 
> ...


http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/30306-Conversion-MBTI-Socionics/page3


Regarding extroversion/introversion:



> Extraversion / Introversion is one of the 4 Jungian dichotomies, and one of the 15 Reinin dichotomies. Extraversion in socionics is a perceptual quality defined by a focus on the characteristics and behavior of objects (people, things, events) outside the observer. In contrast, introversion means a focus on the observer's response to and perception of objects. Augusta likened the difference between extraverted and introverted perception to the difference between bodies and fields in physics. "Bodies" are objects with mass and certain qualities, while "fields" are the realm of interaction between bodies.In socionics, IM elements, information aspects, and types can all be considered extraverted or introverted. Extraverted types are often called extratims (from 'extraverted type of information metabolism'), and introverted types introtims.
> Extraverted IM types are: ILE, ESE, EIE, SLE, SEE, LIE, LSE, and IEE.
> Introverted IM types are: SEI, LII, LSI, IEI, ILI, ESI, EII, and SLI.
> Using the four-letter code: Extraverted types have an E, introverted types have an I as first letter.
> A common misconception, also compounded by some interpretations of MBTI or even of Jung's typology, is that extratims are extraverted as in "socially outgoing", and intratims are introverted as in "socially reserved". In socionics terms, however, that is not so. An introtim may be extremely socially outgoing and even prefer a situation with broad and intensive social interaction as in a large group; an extratim may be socially reserved in terms of preferring social interactions limited to a very small number of select individuals. What is more important, in terms of socionics extraversion/introversion, is whether the individual is inclined to take the initiative in establishing the social interaction (of whatever kind), or prefers to let others take this initiative.


Extraversion and introversion - Wikisocion


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Still doesn´t explain that your Hands in the E6 rambling Videos were "ready" which makes you a Dynamic Type, too much energy from the wirsts.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> Still doesn´t explain that your Hands in the E6 rambling Videos were "ready" which makes you a Dynamic Type, too much energy from the wirsts.


Wrist hand energy is the most reliable way of typing anyone ever. Everyone knows that.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Inguz said:


> Wrist hand energy is the most reliable way of typing anyone ever. Everyone knows that.


I was done with all the Socionc stuff available seven months ago and evolved from that somehow. But whatever be proud of your Stagnation I´m not satisfied with that.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> I was done with all the Socionc stuff available seven months ago and evolved from that somehow. But whatever be proud of your Stagnation I´m not satisfied with that.


Are you in the Pod'lair cult nowadays?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Inguz said:


> Are you in the Pod'lair cult nowadays?


How would that look like?


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> How would that look like?


Fitting for your character.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@Inguz

Do you mean Character in form of xyz or this personal thing?


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> Do you mean Character in form of xyz or this personal thing?


You strike me as the kind of person that would find the appeal of that system.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

<.< uh no offense guys...but typing based on wrist something or other is kind of ridiculous. I have been told before that I seem to use socionics Ne a LOT by the same person who typed me MBTI ISFP...thou originally I was INFP in MBTI. 

Ah damn...this is all too confusing now. Why can't this be as simple as enneagram?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Inguz said:


> You strike me as the kind of person that would find the appeal of that system.


You think I am drawn to Spiritual NF Mojo Enlightenment :laughing: no I am not. But good luck telling that to yourself.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> <.< uh no offense guys...but typing based on wrist something or other is kind of ridiculous. I have been told before that I seem to use socionics Ne a LOT by the same person who typed me MBTI ISFP...thou originally I was INFP in MBTI.
> 
> Ah damn...this is all too confusing now. Why can't this be as simple as enneagram?


Start treating them as separate systems first while learning imo.



Zero11 said:


> You think I am drawn to Spiritual NF Mojo Enlightenment :laughing: no I am not. But good luck telling that to yourself.


I think pod'lair is absolute bonkers.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> <.< uh no offense guys...but typing based on wrist something or other is kind of ridiculous.


First of all there is always the Possibility of a misread. I´m just trying to narrow down options based on criteria with higher success rate. 
Why is it ridiculous, how do you know that it is not possible? 


Inguz said:


> I think pod'lair is absolute bonkers.


So what about Cognitive Type? The only difference is their approach.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> First of all there is always the Possibility of a misread. I´m just trying to narrow down options based on criteria with higher success rate.
> Why is it ridiculous, how do you know that it is not possible?
> 
> So what about Cognitive Type? The only difference is their approach.


The main problem with this approach is that someone can control their mannerisms. This is called acting.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Inguz said:


> The main problem with this approach is that someone can control their mannerisms. This is called acting.


The Cognitive Configuration is the basic pattern before all other ones, the Enneagram for Example is nearly killing it which makes the Diversity inside the Types enormous huge. Its is far to deep to be controlled by something but now We are at the Point of Speculation. Your nothing against my nothing. :laughing: Thats the part were experience comes in. 
You for example rejected this Methodology based on your aversion of it in particular.

So how do you know that you are able to mask your configuration? How do I know this Configuration exists? You can´t know if you just say it´s bullshit without researching it. I found Evidence and don´t worry it will find its way in simpler terms sooner or later.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> The Cognitive Configuration is the basic pattern before all other ones, the Enneagram for Example is nearly killing it which makes the Diversity inside the Types enormous huge. Its is far to deep to be controlled by something but now We are at the Point of Speculation. Your nothing against my nothing. :laughing: Thats the part were experience comes in.
> You for example rejected this Methodology based on your aversion of it in particular.
> 
> So how do you know that you are able to mask your configuration? How do I know this Configuration exists? You can´t know if you just say it´s bullshit without researching it. I found Evidence and don´t worry it will find its way in simpler terms sooner or later.


Pod'lair™ Deluxe Edition Extra Mojo


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@Inguz 
Your arguments were running out and now you are drawing your last Card. 

Again your claim: 


> The main problem with this approach is that someone can control their mannerisms. This is called acting.


is based on what?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

@FreeBeer, so what does this mean; that they are _both_ correct?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

There is something that I see in you that reminds me a lot of @lycanized

but you write more, and more often.

i'm not sure what it is that i'm seeing, and it might have nothing to do with typology but i have just been thinking this for a while.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

TreasureTower said:


> @FreeBeer, so what does this mean; that they are _both_ correct?


Esentially yes. MBTI just disregarded rational-irational and replaced it with structured-unstructured. You can be rational INTj and structured or unstructured or irrational INTp and structured or unstructured.

@Promethea for example relates well to Ni and tested INTP for a long time.

To me this makes the most intuitive sense.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> If you look at it dichotomy by dichotomy nothing is off. MBTI defined J&P wrong when it came to introverts. MBTI functions for introverts are established incorrectly. INTP is supposed to have INTJs function stack, meaning: Ni lead. Imo Ni-Te was confused for Ti lead, there is a flaw in the theory here, J-P should not be defined by rational function orientation, but by the base function in the stack. Ni & Si doms are still percievers.
> 
> The structured-unstructured dichotomy should have been something extra, not function preference related.




I think actually it is something extra, strictly speaking, because the MBTI instrument questions people in such a way as to score the J-P dimension separately from the N-S and T-F ones. The attempts to assign a decisive cognitive line-up to the 16 types is where the problem is and admittedly this has led to a huge mess, because for instance, who is to say that an INTJ by the MBTI instrument isn't going to have a _vastly clearer_ T/F preference as compared to N/S or J/P preference?

The vague assumption is that J/P correlate with Je/Pe, and that as a result, an introverted J will prefer Pi,Je and introversion will cause Pi to lead. The problem with this is that, MBTI's I/E dichotomy decidedly does not capture in what I'd call much of a reasonable way the distinction between a Je orientation and Pi orientation or a Ji orientation v. Pe orientation, as per the conception of these terms which MBTI theorists tried to ascribe to the type dynamics of dichotomy-based types.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

bearotter said:


> I think actually it is something extra, strictly speaking, because the MBTI instrument questions people in such a way as to score the J-P dimension separately from the N-S and T-F ones. The attempts to assign a decisive cognitive line-up to the 16 types is where the problem is and admittedly this has led to a huge mess, because for instance, who is to say that an INTJ by the MBTI instrument isn't going to have a _vastly clearer_ T/F preference as compared to N/S or J/P preference?
> 
> The vague assumption is that J/P correlate with Je/Pe, and that as a result, an introverted J will prefer Pi,Je and introversion will cause Pi to lead. The problem with this is that, MBTI's I/E dichotomy decidedly does not capture in what I'd call much of a reasonable way the distinction between a Je orientation and Pi orientation or a Ji orientation v. Pe orientation, as per the conception of these terms which MBTI theorists tried to ascribe to the type dynamics of dichotomy-based types.[/COLOR]


I'd call an ILI-INTP the following: *INT(p)P* XD and LII-INTP as *INT(j)P*. Both are unorganized yet the function stack is not the same, the way their minds function are not the same.

On some level this makes MBTI sort of flawed.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Promethea said:


> There is something that I see in you that reminds me a lot of @_lycanized_
> 
> but you write more, and more often.
> 
> i'm not sure what it is that i'm seeing, and it might have nothing to do with typology but i have just been thinking this for a while.


Interesting...but you really just don't know what it is?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

lycanized said:


> Interesting...but you really just don't know what it is?


Maybe it'll come to me, its just a vibe. I hate that cause I can't explain it. Lol


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> I'd call an ILI-INTP the following: *INT(p)P* XD and LII-INTP as *INT(j)P*. Both are unorganized yet the function stack is not the same, the way their minds function are not the same.
> 
> On some level this makes MBTI sort of flawed.


I wouldn't say MBTI is flawed at all honestly. I think Socionics is flawed because it refuses to adapt to and incorporate all the research that has been done into the subject all over the world.

TBH, I'm kind of done with Socionics.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> I wouldn't say MBTI is flawed at all honestly. I think Socionics is flawed because it refuses to adapt to and incorporate all the research that has been done into the subject all over the world.
> 
> TBH, I'm kind of done with Socionics.


Well the honest truth is that neither system is acceptable in a pure objective sense, because both fail to provide valid evidence, functions can not be tested for, they are assumed. Neither system has any valid way of testing and one can not base type on a flawed self report questionaire or assumptions made, one would have to objectively measure either the dicotomies or the function strength and awareness / preference. It also needs to pass through falsification and peer review ...both systems utterly fail in comparison to the Big5 for example, which is purely data driven.

The dichotomy that can be measured is introversion-extroversion, both the social and the cognitive. Social is easy enough and the cognitive through how sensitive someone is to stimulation, how fast they can be overstimulated (I) or not (E)...aka HSP.

However what do you call a social introvert who is not HSP? . I for example do not suffer stimulation overload (not HSP, I could potentially rock out at concerts all day long with increasing energy, but would crash and burn if it would involve socializing with strangers).


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> Well the honest truth is that neither system is acceptable in a pure objective sense, because both fail to provide valid evidence, functions can not be tested for, they are assumed. Neither system has any valid way of testing and one can not base type on a flawed self report questionaire or assumptions made, one would have to objectively measure either the dicotomies or the function strength and awareness / preference. It also needs to pass through falsification and peer review ...both systems utterly fail in comparison to the Big5 for example, which is purely data driven.
> 
> The dichotomy that can be measured is introversion-extroversion, both the social and the cognitive. Social is easy enough and the cognitive through how sensitive someone is to stimulation, how fast they can be overstimulated (I) or not (E)...aka HSP.
> 
> However what do you call a social introvert who is not HSP? . I for example do not suffer stimulation overload (not HSP, I could potentially rock out at concerts all day long with increasing energy, but would crash and burn if it would involve socializing with strangers).


Not to start up an argument or sound contentious or anything, but that's just flat out false though. :|

The MBTI dichotomies have tons of statistical evidence to support their existence and MBTI dichotomies _have_ gone through extensive peer review - over 50 years of it. In fact, MBTI is something you will probably be taught by quite a few professors teaching depth and/or personality psychology. Have you actually researched it? I can link you to a few pages right here on this website where discussions have gone on about this very topic with lots of peer-reviewed articles sourced and referenced appropriately. I suggest you look up some of the posts by the user @reckful, or @Teybo.

I promise you, MBTI dichotomies are far more reasonable than the so-called "discreet function" model of Jungian typology and Socionics.

What is decidedly _not_ legitimate are the functions themselves. Where MBTI "fails" at all is that it bothers to pay lip-service to Jungian functions, and I feel this is the strong failing point of Socionics as well. It should just drop the so-called "type dynamics" completely and just move on. As should Socionics, in my opinion. I fully embrace a "dichotomy-centric" model of personality at this point. To it's credit, MBTI also seems to be moving away from functions, and I would not be surprised if they completely abandon them eventually. With the advent of the "Step II" facets, this seems to be the direction they are headed in.

Type dynamics in the year 2013 is just unnecessary. One of the proudest achievements of the Socionics model that they tout so much is their "intertype relations" model. Again, type dynamics is not even needed to provide such an account. The same thing can be achieved via a comparison of various dimensions and their relative degree of preference. I myself am working on a chart and an article I want to publish on this website which does precisely that, showing and predicting how each of the dimensions would interact given various strengths of preference. In fact, not only will my model show intertype relations based on dichotomy preferences, it will also account for _intratype differences as well, thus making it possible to account for the nuanced difference between people of the same type._

Just as a tiny hint of what I'm working on.

Consider you have two people who both test on an MBTI instrument as "ISTP." However, the one person, client A, tests most clearly on the I/E dimension, into introversion with a "very clear" preference. His other dimensions are clear, but not as clear as this one. When further questioned, it is again, very clear that this client strongly identifies with the values of the introverted dimension of the I/E axis more readily and clearly than the other dimensions of the others. Now take another person, client B, who receives the same result (ISTP) but his clearest dimension (very clear/strong preference) is for P over J. The others are relatively weaker by comparison. This is very important to note because it will account for the subtle nuances that will inevitably arise in explaining why these two people are both ISTPs but different _variations_ of ISTP, and help them to avoid spending a lot of time involved in useless tail chasing as they try to figure out why they identify with the ISTP type itself _*but they meet other ISTPs who they do not identify with, and thus get thrown for a loop.*_

You yourself might benefit from my work on this subject. I've seen you very confused about your type, and the whole time I am just thinking, "if only there were some way to account for the _intratype differences_ between two people who have the same type." You wouldn't feel so confused when you meet another person with the same type result as you, but who varies from you a great deal. You wouldn't feel intimidated when they go "you're nothing like XXXX type. You must be XXXX type instead." Indeed, even if you met hundreds of people who were all a certain _KIND_ of XXXX type, you wouldn't feel confused if you were not the _exact same variation as them._ You also would not need to rely on a dozen different personality models and worry about stress because you have ten different people telling you different things and you don't want to offend anyone.

Anyway, I don't mean to digress here. As you yourself even wisely note, both systems shadow the Big 5 model. The Big 5 model is a dichotomy-centric model. It based personality on a "multi-dimensional" perspective, which has proven _remarkably_ accurate over _decades_ of statistical research, which is completely empirical and "objective." These statistical data points are called "factor analysis" which is designed to systematically remove the potential for bias from these sorts of studies. While biases still do exist in the form of what statisticians call "noise in the data" the noise is not significant enough to discredit the objectivity of the data. Thus, we can say with reasonable certainty that there are certain dimensions of personality present within all people, and the Big 5/MBTI dichotomies very accurately reflect them.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Abraxas

I studied psychology and MBTI was mentioned as a theory without any statistically valid evidence, the test itself is a example of how self report testing is flawed. You can't base stuff on it. Psychologists do not use MBTI and do not consider it valid or useful. The main problem is that one can not properly test for type so the theory can not be confirmed or denied since the methods are unscientific.

It has however taken on a life of its own despite the criticism and has become popular: *pop psychology*.

A more valid way would be long term observation of individuals based on dichotomies, to determine if it is statistically valid, however this takes a long time and there was no proper effort along these lines, still functions would be assumed and testing for them would be imposible.

Dichotomies such as concientious vs disorganized or social extrovert vs reclusive introvert exist and have been tested for. Intuition vs senssation is a problem thou, T vs F is less of a problem. For most of these you can defer to the Big5.

*^^; we essentially agree* *the types imo EXIST, but the function stacks are assumed and do not, thus should be dropped or methods for testing need to be found.*

I can go as far as consider myself socially reclusive non highly sensitive person which we can assume is cognitive extroversion, since I'm moderately Agreable I can say that I'm a feeler but its not my main way of being, I'm disorganized, inductive and spontanious, which means "P". No idea how to determine S vs N thou, does me being open and highly inquisitive mean I'm N? (questionable).

As far as I can tell I'm ??FP with a T-ish bent, best assumption based on what I know is xNFP. I do resemble IEE very strongly, so I'm going with that. My strongest preference is towards P.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

@Abraxas That was Te if I ever saw it.



> Since  perceives objective, factual information outside the subject (external activity) and analyzes the rationale and functionality of what is happening or being done or said. "Quality" to a  type is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made.
> 
> Extroverted logic - Wikisocion


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Inguz said:


> @_Abraxas_ That was Te if I ever saw it.


Yeah. Wouldn't you know it, sometimes I use Te and agree with it.

... is what I would say, if I believed "Te" actually existed.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> Anyway, I don't mean to digress here. As you yourself even wisely note, both systems shadow the Big 5 model. The Big 5 model is a dichotomy-centric model. It based personality on a "multi-dimensional" perspective, which has proven _remarkably_ accurate over _decades_ of statistical research, which is completely empirical and "objective." These statistical data points are called "factor analysis" which is designed to systematically remove the potential for bias from these sorts of studies. While biases still do exist in the form of what statisticians call "noise in the data" the noise is not significant enough to discredit the objectivity of the data. Thus, we can say with reasonable certainty that there are certain dimensions of personality present within all people, and the Big 5/MBTI dichotomies very accurately reflect them.


I took the big 5 test a couple of times and got a much higher E score than I usually do with MBTI, because the SLOAN measures behaviours as opposed to functions.

SLOAN puts more emphasis on the fact that I tend to talk more than I listen, than the fact that I prefer my own company and my own thoughts/ideas to other people.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Yeah. Wouldn't you know it, sometimes I use Te and agree with it.
> 
> ... is what I would say, if I believed "Te" actually existed.


You don't use it sometimes, you use it frequently. An IEI prefers Ti all day long, every day, every week, every month.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I'm sorry but I had to add you to my ignore list.

Your posts are an embarrassment to read.


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> The MBTI dichotomies have tons of statistical evidence to support their existence and MBTI dichotomies _have_ gone through extensive peer review - over 50 years of it. In fact, MBTI is something you will probably be taught by quite a few professors teaching depth and/or personality psychology. Have you actually researched it? I can link you to a few pages right here on this website where discussions have gone on about this very topic with lots of peer-reviewed articles sourced and referenced appropriately.
> 
> [...]
> 
> What is decidedly _not_ legitimate are the functions themselves. Where MBTI "fails" at all is that it bothers to pay lip-service to Jungian functions, and I feel this is the strong failing point of Socionics as well.


I know this post is a few days old but thanks for posting it. I ran into the MBTI taught in a psychology class in college and I became obsessed with it... then I learned about cognitive functions, which confused the crap out of me and I ran around in circles with it for about a year. I was once interested in the functions and am still interested in the "theory" behind them, I suppose, but trying to apply those ideas to reality has not worked well for me thus far, limiting its usefulness.



> I myself am working on a chart and an article I want to publish on this website which does precisely that, showing and predicting how each of the dimensions would interact given various strengths of preference. In fact, not only will my model show intertype relations based on dichotomy preferences, it will also account for _intratype differences as well, thus making it possible to account for the nuanced difference between people of the same type._


Interesting. I would like to read it.



> Consider you have two people who both test on an MBTI instrument as "ISTP." However, the one person, client A, tests most clearly on the I/E dimension, into introversion with a "very clear" preference. His other dimensions are clear, but not as clear as this one. When further questioned, it is again, very clear that this client strongly identifies with the values of the introverted dimension of the I/E axis more readily and clearly than the other dimensions of the others. Now take another person, client B, who receives the same result (ISTP) but his clearest dimension (very clear/strong preference) is for P over J. The others are relatively weaker by comparison. This is very important to note because it will account for the subtle nuances that will inevitably arise in explaining why these two people are both ISTPs but different _variations_ of ISTP, and help them to avoid spending a lot of time involved in useless tail chasing as they try to figure out why they identify with the ISTP type itself _*but they meet other ISTPs who they do not identify with, and thus get thrown for a loop.*_


Rambling (beware): I think this is getting to the core of why I have had difficulty finding my type. On the MBTI instrument I tested as preferring I and J quite strongly, with moderate preference for T and very slight preference for N. Yet I have typed others (by observation) as being similar types (ITJ) and I would want to hit my head against a wall whenever I was around them. I tend toward the "tough-mindedness" of T instead of the "soft-heartedness" of F, at least in terms of emotional expression, but it is difficult for me to deal with people who are generally insensitive to others' feelings (rudeness, exclusion, not saying things tactfully, offering only criticism without saying what was done well, lack of compassion, not honoring individual preferences etc) which was the main reason why I did not get along so well.

Well, I think I've rambled enough LOL. (Sorry for hijacking your thread, FreeBeer.)


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@zinnia

No, no  plz feel free to ramble. I'm on the verge of throwing this whole thing out the window and walking away from socionics and MBTI because I can't tell if I'm really F or just T, just socially introverted or cognitively extroverted or both or sensing or intuitive.

Personally the only thing i know is that I'm a perciever in both systems . From an empirical point of view I have found the Big5 and Enneagram to be far more useful and clear then either Socionics or MBTI.

Maybe something useful will emerge from some discussions, however the clear introverted side of @Abraxas doesn't seem to like open discussion much, preferring lone contemplation and I may not have enough patience for the theory to be posted :S.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> Maybe something useful will emerge from some discussions, however the clear introverted side of @_Abraxas_ doesn't seem to like open discussion much, preferring lone contemplation and I may not have enough patience for the theory to be posted :S.


Lol, you're right. I suppose I'm not much for open discussion of things, I do prefer introspection or just good ol' fashioned scientific research. Also, on a side note, I'm with you on Big 5 and Enneagram. I'm already done with Socionics, and likewise I'm starting to get frustrated with MBTI's limitations (mostly because of how grossly popular it is and how everyone takes it so seriously - myself included >.>)

For me, communication is about the sharing of information, while information and "truth" itself is something else. Almost like language is just the vessel or the "host" for the ghost of true knowledge which is partially found in the world of experience and ideas, but not at all in expression. I think of language and expression as like... the "echo" of knowledge, which is itself just an echo of reality, if that makes sense. Something always is lost in translation because even our brains are not perfect at translating and simulating reality itself in the first place, so by the time we try to translate it into a symbolic form of language, even more information is lost, so it is like a copy of a copy of a copy.

And not even a good copy at that. Because first of all subjective reality is only a simulation, and on top of that, we have consciousness which limits that simulation drastically by separating most of it off into our unconscious, where we are not even aware of it. Then you have language, which further eliminates the details of the experience by attempting to generalize via association and abstraction so that we can exchange the "gist" of our subjective experiences with each other. That's always the problem with any conceptual model, in fact - like MBTI, Socionics, or anything else. The very virtue of a model is that it simplifies information to make it easier to understand, but in doing this, details are omitted or abstracted, and thus the "resolution" if you will, of the simulation or model, is necessarily distorted and often grossly so.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Lol, you're right. I suppose I'm not much for open discussion of things, I do prefer introspection or just good ol' fashioned scientific research. Also, on a side note, I'm with you on Big 5 and Enneagram. I'm already done with Socionics, and likewise I'm starting to get frustrated with MBTI's limitations (mostly because of how grossly popular it is and how everyone takes it so seriously - myself included >.>)
> 
> For me, communication is about the sharing of information, while information and "truth" itself is something else. Almost like language is just the vessel or the "host" for the ghost of true knowledge which is partially found in the world of experience and ideas, but not at all in expression. I think of language and expression as like... the "echo" of knowledge, which is itself just an echo of reality, if that makes sense. Something always is lost in translation because even our brains are not perfect at translating and simulating reality itself in the first place, so by the time we try to translate it into a symbolic form of language, even more information is lost, so it is like a copy of a copy of a copy.
> 
> And not even a good copy at that. Because first of all subjective reality is only a simulation, and on top of that, we have consciousness which limits that simulation drastically by separating most of it off into our unconscious, where we are not even aware of it. Then you have language, which further eliminates the details of the experience by attempting to generalize via association and abstraction so that we can exchange the "gist" of our subjective experiences with each other. That's always the problem with any conceptual model, in fact - like MBTI, Socionics, or anything else. The very virtue of a model is that it simplifies information to make it easier to understand, but in doing this, details are omitted or abstracted, and thus the "resolution" if you will, of the simulation or model, is necessarily distorted and often grossly so.


<.< you really are a Ni dom you know that?

:\ well okay, you are right. I know, I know, but its not fun being stuck in my head with stuff I can't share. When I figure something out my first impulse is to share it...which as you say comes out "diluted", the essence is not easy and often impossible to convey unless its something simple enough and obvious through the other person's similar to same experience. Its like trying to look at a 1080p game through an 8 bit 1024x768 resolution monitor.

Still, its boring for me to not engage in the back and forth dynamic of throwing ides around with other people, its what gets me going and how I reach realizations, advance personal knowledge of whatever I'm involved in. Its not necessarily the knowledge others impart, its more how I bridge the gaps and connect the puzzle pieces which is my own understanding of something. Throwing ideas around with others is sort of the fuel for the fire I guess.

Plus getting stuff out helps me sort through my thoughts. I usually don't know which one, what where has more potential without it.


----------

