[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Calculate this.

[doppelganger]

Oversimplification (get that out of here). You can do both actions, but the ideologies of doing both actions are contrary to each other. You can say you are both a Solipsist and an Objecivist (or Empiricist) and provide arguments for both, but you can't actually philosophically be both at the same time, because their foundations openly conflict.

The LII values strong and devalues strong . As you've said, LII prefers to use , and thus ideologically aligns with , while the LII doesn't prefer , and thus ideologically dissociates from . is used by the LII as a defense, to fight off people attempting to bring the conversation or the project around to a perspective. It is used for the sole purpose of relaying why the Ego functions are better than it, and that is why the Id Block is often seen in a person as a sort of personal mockery of the elements in that position.

I might add that your passage comes straight from socionics texts and shows the dangers of swallowing whole unverified ideas w/o first chewing them over to see if there really is anything of substance. The bolded part in particular is ridiculous! I enjoy poking fun at Te as much as any intelligent person, but I also do useful, though maybe less enjoyable, things with Te.

 

[InStinct]

Very impressive.
And now if we improved few functions in this personality until the cognitive functions get ordered like:
Ti Te Ni Si Fi Ne Se Fe
Although the first four functions are still close in power, but the Si is developed and became more powerful than Fi..
What’s the closest mbti type this can fit in?

Well, I suppose an INTJ is the closest, since INTJ has Ni+Te+Fi+Se. ENTJ (Te+Ni+Se+Fi) is probably the next closest. If Fe is the weakest function then I suppose it would be far from any xFxJ type. And the strong Te with Ni suggests an xNTJ. So it's either an INTJ with a weak Se and a strong Ti(kinda like one of my former roommates btw) or an ENTJ but since intraverted functions dominate so badly, I'd say INTJ.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Yeah, that's what they say in socionics, but in the book of Life, the Universe, and Everything (aka reality), LII uses Te when it makes sense to use Te. In fact, trying to use Ti to do a Te job is like trying to use a wrench where a hammer is needed. So it's not "ideological", it's practical. Just whatever tool fits the job.

You are stuck in the JCF worldview. Devalued elements are striven to be minimized in reality, for the very reason that they are ideologically against your own cognitive perspectives. If is used by an LII, it is ultimately serving . All element positions serve the perspective of the base element in their own roles. Your hammer-wrench analogy, while you may enjoy it, does not apply here.

I might add that your passage comes straight from socionics texts and shows the dangers of swallowing whole unverified ideas w/o first chewing them over to see if there really is anything of substance. The bolded part in particular is ridiculous! I enjoy poking fun at Te as much as any intelligent person, but I also do useful, though maybe less enjoyable, things with Te.

If you are LII, anytime you engage , you will only be doing so to serve in some fashion. is seen as an inferior perspective by the LII in comparison to the view, which, in its own way, represents the eternal struggle of Rationalism Ti against Empiricism Te.

If your entire argument is based on your own personal "usage" of elements, you need to stop. Understanding the system through your own psyche is utterly biased.

 

[doppelganger]

You are stuck in the JCF worldview. Devalued elements are striven to be minimized in reality, for the very reason that they are ideologically against your own cognitive perspectives. If is used by an LII, it is ultimately serving . All element positions serve the perspective of the base element in their own roles. Your hammer-wrench analogy, while you may enjoy it, does not apply here.



If you are LII, anytime you engage , you will only be doing so to serve in some fashion. is seen as an inferior perspective by the LII in comparison to the view, which, in its own way, represents the eternal struggle of Rationalism Ti against Empiricism Te.

If your entire argument is based on your own personal "usage" of elements, you need to stop. Understanding the system through your own psyche is utterly biased.

I'm hardly the only LII who lives and works in the real world and who therefore regularly uses Te logic to get Te results. The problem here is you are looking at the world through the distorted lens of UNVERIFIED theory. I, otoh, am simply telling you what I, and many other people, actually do. See the difference? Of course not. You're not looking at the world with your own eyes.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I'm hardly the only LII who lives and works in the real world and who therefore regularly uses Te logic to get Te results. The problem here is you are looking at the world through the distorted lens of UNVERIFIED theory. I, otoh, am simply telling you what I, and many other people, actually do. See the difference? Of course not. You're not looking at the world with your own eyes.

And that is your in service of . You are using as a crutch in order to undermine my argumentation so that you can ultimately bring me to the viewpoint: "You're not looking at the world with your own eyes" (You are not making your own logical judgement [Ij] on these theories and models). Your devaluing of was already apparent in your own skepticism of the perspective, for in your cognition, represents mindlessly absorbing information without bothering to judge it yourself. This is the beauty of Quasi-relations. We are both lecturing each other on how we should both be dealing with this situation while not listening to each other, for the sole reason that we see the other perspective as deeply misguided, it's futile.

What you perceive as me just mindlessly accepting Socionics Theory without actually judging its logical worth is seen as an affront to your lead perspective Ti and instead entertaining the "inferior" perspective Te. In actuality, my approach toward the theory is seen as completely backwards to you. My own perspective involves first grasping the concepts presented in the theory as it was written by those who created it (not through my own judgement, I am using , separating the knowledge from my own understanding/perspective), and then I am using my perception element Ni to predict how the model would actually work realistically or feasibly (surely each word of the theory can't be representative of reality, thus the model is merely a guideline pointing in the direction of what is actually happening in reality in the form of a meta-perspective of meaning). To then verify those predictions, I observe those around me and double-check my own perceptions of what's probably going on in reality (what the authors are trying to describe at the core, what they are attempting to see).

Beautifully, you have lead me toward more evidence that LII's use of ultimately ties back around toward than I've already had in previous engagements.

 

[Coriolis]

Part of the socionics side-discussion has been moved to OTP. While discussion of socionics may have some relevance and utility to the OP, when it degenerates into unproductive bickering, it certainly does not. A discussion of socionics for its own sake, including consideration of its validity, would best be served in a new thread.

 

[doppelganger]

Part of the socionics side-discussion has been moved to OTP. While discussion of socionics may have some relevance and utility to the OP, when it degenerates into unproductive bickering, it certainly does not. A discussion of socionics for its own sake, including consideration of its validity, would best be served in a new thread.

There are no scientific (confirmed) theories of mind or cognition. Typologies like MBTI and socionics are like the astrologies and occult arts before the sun finally dawned and the Enlightened Age of science was born. Until we discover the science of mind, amateurs will play with voodoo dolls like typologies. Hell, even after a science is discovered there are many who will continue believing in these ideas. Just look at the people today who dismiss science and put their faith in astrology, religion, and Fox news. Knock yourselves out, boys and girls.

 

[Coriolis]

There are no scientific (confirmed) theories of mind or cognition. Typologies like MBTI and socionics are like the astrologies and occult arts before the sun finally dawned and the Enlightened Age of science was born. Until we discover the science of mind, amateurs will play with voodoo dolls like typologies. Hell, even after a science is discovered there are many who will continue believing in these ideas. Just look at the people today who dismiss science and put their faith in astrology, religion, and Fox news. Knock yourselves out, boys and girls.

The fact remains that some people find utility in these theories. Further discussion that is not related to answering the questions posed by the OP will be moved.

In case I wasn't clear enough before: if you wish to discuss the validity of these theories, start a new thread.

 

[Mademoiselle]

Alright thank you gentlemen
Expected results.
This thread has ended.
Let it be closed.​