User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 47

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    spso
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    But some MBTI theorists have attempted to develop an 8 function model which is pretty much the same as socionics in some ways (Beebe, Thomson, I also think Berens?). Also, the way we relate to people around us is already laid out by Jung. Socionics just develops this idea further e.g. Ti tends to oppose Fi and Fi opposes Fe. The logic behind this is pretty obvious since Ti and Fi evaluate internal judgements in a very different manner and Fi has a different way of evaluating (introverted) compared to Fe (extroverted). This is what the quadra values and to a degree, intertype system is based on.

    Obviously, if we do not share perceptions of the world and how to arrive at conclusions there will be communication problems. Socionics describes this pretty well in my opinion, even though it can be better.
    I will have to look into it further, which is why I prefaced it by saying I am not very well-versed in the theory. I do agree that varying perceptions cause problems (in fact, I believe whomever wrote the excepts at typelogic.com attempts to do this sparsely). I attempted to get into socionics a while ago and was quite...confused? as to why they would include facial features and "gait is slow" external features. Have you noticed a correlation between facial expression and type that would corroborate this? I completely denounced this part as hokey, yet there are other theories in psychology that do a somewhat similar. What would you say is the best interpretation online? With the best translation?

  2. #22
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elocute View Post
    I will have to look into it further, which is why I prefaced it by saying I am not very well-versed in the theory. I do agree that varying perceptions cause problems (in fact, I believe whomever wrote the excepts at typelogic.com attempts to do this sparsely). I attempted to get into socionics a while ago and was quite...confused? as to why they would include facial features and "gait is slow" external features. Have you noticed a correlation between facial expression and type that would corroborate this? I completely denounced this part as hokey, yet there are other theories in psychology that do a somewhat similar. What would you say is the best interpretation online? With the best translation?
    Fair enough. I don't think I saw that when I commented on your post. I tend to skim read.

    Well, visual identification (VI) is a questionable aspect of socionics even among socionists. I personally think there's some correlation or at least in theory something to VI although I am unsure how well it's applied (I do however undeniably look like an EII-Ne for example). I think this site is a pretty good start to get into VI. I don't think the people who uploaded those photos of people got all of those celebrities right, but it gives you an idea of how each type looks like including subtype, something I actually like. I am not sure I am willing to uploaded a photo of myself just yet on this site but yes, I look very EII-Ne. Very.

    Best interpretation online of socionics is probably in my opinion wikisocion. I am not that versed with sources though. 16types.com has some good articles and Rick DeLong had a blog dedicated to socionics as well but it's not updated anymore. There's also socionics.com and similar sites. There's no real good translation. You just need to mish and mash and judge for yourself what information is ultimately valuable. I would suggest to look into quadra values (very digestible) and Augusta's Model A though, which is the basis of socionics as a theory. You will find many similarities in how Model A is structured to some MBTI models e.g. Beebe.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  3. #23
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sulfit View Post
    ...I haven't seen much equivalent done on MBTI forums that would entail seriously investigating the synergistic combinations of functions.
    Yeah, tbh, I never really saw you engage in any of those discussions.

    Most of what you seem to do here is post links to your favorite socionics forum.

  4. #24
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    I think referencing or using both together becomes confusing, because of the fact that they are so similar, but things have different meaning. Whoever adapted it to the MBTI letters should have used something else instead of j/p. Like since they wanted to be so true to Jung in making it refer to the dominant, rather than extraverted function, then perhaps they should have just maintained his terms "rational"/"irrational".

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    I just read an article where they stated that the founder of Socionics differed in his approach from the founders of MBTI in that he focused on the behavior, the way people acted and how it impacted society and contributed to it, whereas MBTI specifically focuses on explaining the way people actually think, and not so much what they do.

    That in an of itself could definitely explain the different interpretations of the Jungian functions in developing these systems. I wonder how it would manifest concretely though, so those that know both socionics and mbti, how do you feel it concretely differs from each other, and do you feel that much can be gained in terms of complimentary information in getting acquainted with both systems? Or do you have a clear favorite? And does the bias mentioned above have anything to do with that preference?
    Funny, as the purpose of the J/P dichotomy was basically behavioral. The extraverted function shapes our interaction with others. Hence, why J/P became so instrumental/useful in both temperament and Interaction Styles. (In Socionics, what they have labeled "temperament" is I/E + j/p, but the Keirsey/Berens concept of "Informative/Directive" seems to really fit the types, and matches the classic temperament factor of "people/task focus", which was the other factor beside I/E; yet in the Socionics use of j/p, that concept is lost. NTP's, for instance, which was one of the "role informative" groups, is now split between Ep and Ij. Does Socionics have a behavioral definition of j/p, since they are different according to E/I?)

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    You mean "here"? I mean how introversion-extroversion is on the one hand mixed up with the function attitudes i.e. an introvert is someone with a dominant introverted function but on the other hand is a person who is also socially introverted. There are overlaps yes, but I find that those overlaps correlate more strongly to enneagram than they do with our cognitive types. It just becomes a theoretical mess because people end up thinking that "I can't be an extrovert" (quite often this way, rarely the other way around) because "I don't like being around people" etc. It misses the point of the function attitudes and where our focus lies. There must be a stronger theoretical correlation between the two to explain the I/E axis better. For example, a person I know in real life and who is slightly interested in MBTI without me knowing typed me as an INFJ because when we meet I seem pretty social and outgoing and he thought my I/E axis was something like 60% introvert, 40% extrovert or similar. This entirely misses the point of how cognitive introversion and extroversion works. Socially perhaps this is true but I am clearly having a strong bias towards being a cognitive introvert because my thinking is subjective, not objective.
    What's missing there is the other factor I mentioned, of people vs task focus. This is covered more by Keirsey and especially Berens. That also greatly affects how you relate to people. I/E is more "expressive" and shows how much you tend to approach people, while people/task is called "responsive", and covers how much you respond to others, and it can even be termed as "responding as an introvert or extrovert. So the extravert who says he doesn't like being around people is probably a "directive" type (ST/NJ), who is not very responsive to others, despite how much he expresses to them. (The Keirsey/Berens definition of "directive/directing" doesn't go much into this, but Berens did match it to "task"-focus, and when a person is task focused; to use a bit of hyperbole, people are basically a bother, for they are more interested in their own personal goals, so they'll tend to "direct" people and speak in a more "dry" fashion (wet/dry was Galen's original corresponding factor), and rather be left alone until they are ready to approach people for whatever reason. "Don't call me; I'll call you".

    Berens discovered another level of people/task, for Keirsey's temperaments, called "structure/motive". Respectively, SJ, NT and SP, NF.
    So even though INFJ is "directive", it is still "motive" focused, and thus people-focused on that level.
    Of course, looking at it cognitively, it would be from a preferred Fe perspective, but these things are all interrelated. F is people focused, and J is task focused, so Fe preference will produce a mixture of people and task focus. (Same with P and T).
    (Also, when mapping type to [behavioral] temperament, there is the possibility of degrees of moderation, so someone falling on the "introvert" and/or "directive" side could still be moderately extroverted or people-focused).

    Again, with Socionics, all of this is lost, because the key factor of j/p is redefined. Perhaps "back" to what it originally was "supposed" to be according to the originator of the theory, but as I always say, Jung's theory didn't seem really "complete", and was expanded and improved upon by the likes of Myers, Keirsey, Berens, Beebe and Thomson.

    Also, I really lost respect for Socionics when someone here mentioned VI, before. Though I see now an acknowledgment that not all Socionists accept it.
    The detailed breakdown of type dynamics is nice, though you do have this for MBTI, though not as common. There's Beebe's archetype model, though there is really no centralized source for it; it's basically publicized through lectures and workshops. There's also Type Logic, which has a full set of intertype dynamics like Socionics, though it is through some software you have to pay for.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  5. #25
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I think referencing or using both together becomes confusing, because of the fact that they are so similar, but things have different meaning. Whoever adapted it to the MBTI letters should have used something else instead of j/p. Like since they wanted to be so true to Jung in making it refer to the dominant, rather than extraverted function, then perhaps they should have just maintained his terms "rational"/"irrational".
    You capitalize and non-capitalize to separate. Or even better, you use the three-letter code for sociotypes like EII instead of INFj. Some people don't make the J/P lower case even when they are referring to socionics but usually it's clear because then the archetype is also listed i.e. INFJ Dostoyevsky.

    Funny, as the purpose of the J/P dichotomy was basically behavioral. The extraverted function shapes our interaction with others. Hence, why J/P became so instrumental/useful in both temperament and Interaction Styles. (In Socionics, what they have labeled "temperament" is I/E + j/p, but the Keirsey/Berens concept of "Informative/Directive" seems to really fit the types, and matches the classic temperament factor of "people/task focus", which was the other factor beside I/E; yet in the Socionics use of j/p, that concept is lost. NTP's, for instance, which was one of the "role informative" groups, is now split between Ep and Ij. Does Socionics have a behavioral definition of j/p, since they are different according to E/I?)
    I think socionics handles this much better because the way they categorize is more logical based on the dominant temperament. Most of all it drops the J/P letter code entirely which I opine is rather useless since what it measures is really persona anyway.

    What's missing there is the other factor I mentioned, of people vs task focus. This is covered more by Keirsey and especially Berens. That also greatly affects how you relate to people. I/E is more "expressive" and shows how much you tend to approach people, while people/task is called "responsive", and covers how much you respond to others, and it can even be termed as "responding as an introvert or extrovert. So the extravert who says he doesn't like being around people is probably a "directive" type (ST/NJ), who is not very responsive to others, despite how much he expresses to them. (The Keirsey/Berens definition of "directive/directing" doesn't go much into this, but Berens did match it to "task"-focus, and when a person is task focused; to use a bit of hyperbole, people are basically a bother, for they are more interested in their own personal goals, so they'll tend to "direct" people and speak in a more "dry" fashion (wet/dry was Galen's original corresponding factor), and rather be left alone until they are ready to approach people for whatever reason. "Don't call me; I'll call you".
    This really sounds more like Fe versus Fi in socionics, especially the whole "Don't call me, I call you" logic.

    Berens discovered another level of people/task, for Keirsey's temperaments, called "structure/motive". Respectively, SJ, NT and SP, NF.
    So even though INFJ is "directive", it is still "motive" focused, and thus people-focused on that level.
    Of course, looking at it cognitively, it would be from a preferred Fe perspective, but these things are all interrelated. F is people focused, and J is task focused, so Fe preference will produce a mixture of people and task focus. (Same with P and T).
    This is part why I don't like the MBTI because I don't think F or T are people or task focused. They can be either. This is also why I think Keirsey's temperaments are fucked up because according to him I'd definitely be an NT based on the fact I'm an E5 so I don't have a very sociable or people-pleasing persona.

    (Also, when mapping type to [behavioral] temperament, there is the possibility of degrees of moderation, so someone falling on the "introvert" and/or "directive" side could still be moderately extroverted or people-focused).
    Socionics doesn't approach it this way and I think they are correct at doing so, but instead they take Jung's definition only into account. I think the whole variable scale of "You're 20% introverted" that some people get on tests is highly misleading and shows a misunderstanding of how the system actually works. You are either cognitively introverted or extroverted. Not both.

    Again, with Socionics, all of this is lost, because the key factor of j/p is redefined. Perhaps "back" to what it originally was "supposed" to be according to the originator of the theory, but as I always say, Jung's theory didn't seem really "complete", and was expanded and improved upon by the likes of Myers, Keirsey, Berens, Beebe and Thomson.
    They are measuring two entirely different things. Jung and thus also socionics, is far more interested in cognition. The MBTI mostly measure's one persona which is why you see people easily over-scoring as NTs even though they may be sensors etc. because cognitively they are sensors but they identify with the traits listed for an intuitive type.

    Also, I really lost respect for Socionics when someone here mentioned VI, before. Though I see now an acknowledgment that not all Socionists accept it.
    They don't. It's controversial but I think it's an interesting aspect.

    The detailed breakdown of type dynamics is nice, though you do have this for MBTI, though not as common. There's Beebe's archetype model, though there is really no centralized source for it; it's basically publicized through lectures and workshops. There's also Type Logic, which has a full set of intertype dynamics like Socionics, though it is through some software you have to pay for.
    I personally think the Beebe model is a farcry from socionics but most of all, I think socionics does it better.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  6. #26
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    You capitalize and non-capitalize to separate. Or even better, you use the three-letter code for sociotypes like EII instead of INFj. Some people don't make the J/P lower case even when they are referring to socionics but usually it's clear because then the archetype is also listed i.e. INFJ Dostoyevsky.
    I know, but it's still potentially confusing or misleading. You have the debate as to whether INTP corresponds more to INTj or INTp, and, I also forgot to mention, to do the latter, you have to redefine the functions so that "INTp's 'NiTe' acts like MBTI's 'TiNe', etc." That to me was the first strike against Socionics. I've had debates with Jack Flak and Simulated World over this, and they claim they claim that these alternated definitions of the functions are truer to Jung, but then since ENTP=ENTp=NeTi (since the extraverted function is the dominant), then how does that compare to the "NiTe"-like TiNe of the INTj or the NiTe of the INTp?

    So I've also said the three letter codes were also better for them to have just stuck with. Still, someone somewhere would come along and try to match it with MBTI, with corresponding function and dominant orientation letters, but the last dichotomy should have used altogether different letters.
    This really sounds more like Fe versus Fi in socionics, especially the whole "Don't call me, I call you" logic.
    Which one is which? Fi is "don't call me; I'll call you"? (If so, I would surmise that, at least in MBTI type, that would be more tertiary or inferior Fi, which of course, denotes a TJ type. They would be the most like that).
    This is part why I don't like the MBTI because I don't think F or T are people or task focused. They can be either.
    Again, people/task focus of a particular type are not determined by T/F by themselves; it is an interplay with J/P, and the otherwise unrelated factor of S/N determines which is which. NTP's are people-focused (in the "affective" level, but task-focused on the conative level), and NFJ's are task-focused (again on the affective level, but people-focused on the conative level). For S's, it's totally the other way around.
    This is also why I think Keirsey's temperaments are fucked up because according to him I'd definitely be an NT based on the fact I'm an E5 so I don't have a very sociable or people-pleasing persona.
    I see I made a mistake, in that you said the person typed you as INFJ, not that you really were one. So you said before you were INTP.

    Both of what I mentioned may come into play.
    You may be technically "informative" on the affective (social) level, but the T, which is connected with the conative (Keirseyan) temperament is what will give you your less sociable task focus (the two areas do affect each other).
    Also, you could be moderate in the responsive area. Moderation is what led to the idea of a fifth temperament, but in translating back to four, two become lumped together. So "Behind the Scenes" (ISF/INP) can be either Supine, which is very people-focused, or Phlegmatic, which is the moderate one, who can "take people or leave 'em". That ends up being the "typical" INTP, while Supines like me and a few others often seem like Feelers in comparison, and have to work really hard to verify our T preference.
    Then with NT being Choleric (contrary to Keirsey), that together with Phlegmatic will produce a very aloof, nonsociable blend, corresponding with an E5. (But even Supines like myself and others, end up as 5, but often with a 4 or 6 wing).

    Socionics doesn't approach it this way and I think they are correct at doing so, but instead they take Jung's definition only into account. I think the whole variable scale of "You're 20% introverted" that some people get on tests is highly misleading and shows a misunderstanding of how the system actually works. You are either cognitively introverted or extroverted. Not both.
    That's Clarity of Preference, which I learned in MBTI class and discussed afterward. Yes, that is widely assumed to determine something like "ambiversion", but really doesn't (I used to fall into this, a long time ago, when I was talking about stuff like "81 types" that had three poles for each "scale"). It just means, for whatever reason, you're not sure of your preference.

    I believe that the most complete temperament theory (the FIRO-based APS system) is what picks up moderate preferences, so someone who falls into what's called "expressing as a Phlegmatic", will technically be an "ambivert", and this won't be picked up by MBTI. In that system, they'll still fall either on one side or the other.
    It may still lead to them having a low preference-clarity, which will be a clue of their "expressed behavior", but they won't be an "A" or "X---" type, and others, who are more solidly high or low in expressiveness may still have a low clarity, including because of their wanted behavior, which is a separate factor drawing them toward or away from people, despite expressiveness.
    I think socionics handles this much better because the way they categorize is more logical based on the dominant temperament. Most of all it drops the J/P letter code entirely which I opine is rather useless since what it measures is really persona anyway.
    They are measuring two entirely different things. Jung and thus also socionics, is far more interested in cognition. The MBTI mostly measure's one persona which is why you see people easily over-scoring as NTs even though they may be sensors etc. because cognitively they are sensors but they identify with the traits listed for an intuitive type.
    Funny, the OP said that Socionics was focusing more on behavior (which would tie into "personas").

    I believe they are all interrelated. The APS mentions "personality masks" and "learned behavior" that are artificial factors that affect behavior (and thus insists you cannot determine temperament without their instrument), but still, underneath all of this is an inborn behavior preference (discussed in terms of core "needs"), and pairing it with MBTI (Through the Keirsey and Interaction Styles models), shows how it corresponds with cognitive preferences.
    I personally think the Beebe model is a far cry from socionics but most of all, I think socionics does it better.
    Well, Beebe specifically deals with the archetypes, and thus would be similar to Socionics' descriptions of the "blocks" (Id, Ego, Super Id and Super Ego, as well as some of the other stuff mentioned, like Tertiary being "desirative" or whatever it was called, and then the whole "Valued/Subdued" and "strong/weak" dichotomies, which would correspond to "ego-syntonic"/"ego-dystonic", and "preferred/non-preferred", respectively. Type Logic is what goes further into intertype dynamics.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  7. #27
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I know, but it's still potentially confusing or misleading. You have the debate as to whether INTP corresponds more to INTj or INTp, and, I also forgot to mention, to do the latter, you have to redefine the functions so that "INTp's 'NiTe' acts like MBTI's 'TiNe', etc." That to me was the first strike against Socionics. I've had debates with Jack Flak and Simulated World over this, and they claim they claim that these alternated definitions of the functions are truer to Jung, but then since ENTP=ENTp=NeTi (since the extraverted function is the dominant), then how does that compare to the "NiTe"-like TiNe of the INTj or the NiTe of the INTp?
    Because the J letter code obviously denotes that the dominant function in this case is a judging one, so INTP = INTj. I am not sure why this is complicated to you. It's not about acting, it's about thinking.

    So I've also said the three letter codes were also better for them to have just stuck with. Still, someone somewhere would come along and try to match it with MBTI, with corresponding function and dominant orientation letters, but the last dichotomy should have used altogether different letters.
    I don't know the reason or the course for that but as long as you realize that socionics letter code always represent the functions as opposed to behavior that the MBTI does; I don't see the problem keeping the two systems apart.

    Which one is which? Fi is "don't call me; I'll call you"? (If so, I would surmise that, at least in MBTI type, that would be more tertiary or inferior Fi, which of course, denotes a TJ type. They would be the most like that).
    Any Fi valuing type would do that because their feeling focus is on themselves and their feelings than that of others.

    Again, people/task focus of a particular type are not determined by T/F by themselves; it is an interplay with J/P, and the otherwise unrelated factor of S/N determines which is which. NTP's are people-focused (in the "affective" level, but task-focused on the conative level), and NFJ's are task-focused (again on the affective level, but people-focused on the conative level). For S's, it's totally the other way around.
    I see I made a mistake, in that you said the person typed you as INFJ, not that you really were one. So you said before you were INTP.
    Which is why I don't like the way the J/P letter code applies J/P because it's so focused on external behavior. I don't think this applies to all people who favor Ti and Ne as their functions. Enneagram plays a large role in this.

    And I type as a Jungian INFP and socionics EII (see how both systems give me the same cognitive fuctions?) but in MBTI INTP because it measures my persona, how I come acoss to people, not how I actually think. Which is ironic also since both Jung and socionics note that the Fi dominant or ExI type isn't necessarily very social or people-pleasing. That's more of an Fe thing and I argue that Keirsey's NF temperament is heavily biased by this perception.

    Both of what I mentioned may come into play.
    You may be technically "informative" on the affective (social) level, but the T, which is connected with the conative (Keirseyan) temperament is what will give you your less sociable task focus (the two areas do affect each other).
    Also, you could be moderate in the responsive area. Moderation is what led to the idea of a fifth temperament, but in translating back to four, two become lumped together. So "Behind the Scenes" (ISF/INP) can be either Supine, which is very people-focused, or Phlegmatic, which is the moderate one, who can "take people or leave 'em". That ends up being the "typical" INTP, while Supines like me and a few others often seem like Feelers in comparison, and have to work really hard to verify our T preference.
    Then with NT being Choleric (contrary to Keirsey), that together with Phlegmatic will produce a very aloof, nonsociable blend, corresponding with an E5. (But even Supines like myself and others, end up as 5, but often with a 4 or 6 wing).
    But I told you that I'm melancholic, not supine or phlegmatic. I don't think you will find that phlegmatic will necessarily correspond to enneagram this way, but based on what I read about phlegmatic, it sounds more like 9 behavior and think (avoiding conflict, seeking peace of mind) than 5. 5 can be very aggressive and conflict-seeking in the intellectual arena due to them ultimately being power-seekers and have a connection to 8. Also, 5 is a very emotionally sensitive type and can be prone to extreme moodiness if 4 wing and the influence is strong like it is in my case. It thus makes perfect sense that 5w4 would be melancholic because as you find in the melancholic description, they can be very intellectual and socially aloof.

    That's Clarity of Preference, which I learned in MBTI class and discussed afterward. Yes, that is widely assumed to determine something like "ambiversion", but really doesn't (I used to fall into this, a long time ago, when I was talking about stuff like "81 types" that had three poles for each "scale"). It just means, for whatever reason, you're not sure of your preference.
    But I am not talking about the widely accepted definition of introversion-extroversion. I am specifically talking about cognitive introversion or extroversion which is very different to the introversion-extroversion you have in fact described. Cognitive introversion and extroversion is as you know, something Jung wrote extensively on because it denotes our cognitive bias in which we view the world through. Is it objective or subjetive? There is no varying scale here.

    I believe that the most complete temperament theory (the FIRO-based APS system) is what picks up moderate preferences, so someone who falls into what's called "expressing as a Phlegmatic", will technically be an "ambivert", and this won't be picked up by MBTI. In that system, they'll still fall either on one side or the other.
    It may still lead to them having a low preference-clarity, which will be a clue of their "expressed behavior", but they won't be an "A" or "X---" type, and others, who are more solidly high or low in expressiveness may still have a low clarity, including because of their wanted behavior, which is a separate factor drawing them toward or away from people, despite expressiveness.
    Funny, the OP said that Socionics was focusing more on behavior (which would tie into "personas").
    And I think this is largely more of a superficial reading of socionics which focuses on aspects outside the strict IM analysis that I'm talking about here. Nevertheless, while soiconics does try to explain external behavior it does so quite logically by tying it back to the IMs so I have no problem with that. I don't see the MBTI being capable of doing such a connection that's not based on a stereotype type description.

    I believe they are all interrelated. The APS mentions "personality masks" and "learned behavior" that are artificial factors that affect behavior (and thus insists you cannot determine temperament without their instrument), but still, underneath all of this is an inborn behavior preference (discussed in terms of core "needs"), and pairing it with MBTI (Through the Keirsey and Interaction Styles models), shows how it corresponds with cognitive preferences.
    I think there is a fine line to walk here between when we talk about innate preferences aka temperaments and then trying to tie these further and prove them using current Pcyhometrics matrices. Would innate introversion probably appear in these matrices? Yes, both the Big 5 and MBTI measure them. But does this necessarily relate to Jung's way of defining introversion-extroversion? No, it doesn't. There are a lot of people who mistype thinking they are cognitive introverts (they wear a letter code starting with I instead of E) because they see themselves as social introverts. That they also focus on extroverted tasks here is irrelevant because this is still not what I am talking about. I am talking about whether your mind is cognitively biased towards introversion or extroversion but if you focus on the objective world or the subjective world of things.

    Well, Beebe specifically deals with the archetypes, and thus would be similar to Socionics' descriptions of the "blocks" (Id, Ego, Super Id and Super Ego, as well as some of the other stuff mentioned, like Tertiary being "desirative" or whatever it was called, and then the whole "Valued/Subdued" and "strong/weak" dichotomies, which would correspond to "ego-syntonic"/"ego-dystonic", and "preferred/non-preferred", respectively. Type Logic is what goes further into intertype dynamics.
    Yes, I know this, and I'm saying that I think socionics does it so much better.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

  8. #28
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeaT View Post
    Because the J letter code obviously denotes that the dominant function in this case is a judging one, so INTP = INTj. I am not sure why this is complicated to you. It's not about acting, it's about thinking.
    It's complicated because of what I said, where people trying to tie j/p to J/P claim that the INTp's "Ni""acts like" the INTP's Ne, and "Te" "acts like" Ti. ("acting" wasn't literal, referring to the person, but rather how the functions' characteristics were described.
    Any Fi valuing type would do that because their feeling focus is on themselves and their feelings than that of others.
    The true Jungian concept, is that Fi simply is a personal valuation that references an internal "standard". The whole "focused on one's self" description is easily misunderstood, and often portrayed as "selfish", and even antisocial, but that, again, might more closely fit the tertiary/inferior ("less mature", I call it) manifestation of the function for TJ's.

    So I think the FP would be just as much into people, but rather than directly referencing group values, they'll reference a more universalistic sense of values they have internalized, which they then use to gauge other people's true needs. So you can't entirely say "focus on their feelings rather than that of others". Their internal standards do reach out to "consider" others.

    If the Fi is dominant, then, it will likely manifest as the typical Supine trait of wanting people, but not expressing this need to them (They'll then use inferior Te "tasks" to try to in acceptance through forms of "service").
    Which is why I don't like the way the J/P letter code applies J/P because it's so focused on external behavior.
    And I think that's an important indicator of what's "preferred", inside.
    I don't think this applies to all people who favor Ti and Ne as their functions. Enneagram plays a large role in this.
    That's now been added as an extension of the type code. Four letters, and one or more numbers. I would have liked to be able to say that the E types correspond to type (via Interaction styles and Keirsey temperaments, through instinctual variants that can have stackings of different types), but that's even harder to sell, so I've pretty much laid off of Enneagram for now.
    And I type as a Jungian INFP and socionics EII (see how both systems give me the same cognitive fuctions?) but in MBTI INTP because it measures my persona, how I come acoss to people, not how I actually think. Which is ironic also since both Jung and socionics note that the Fi dominant or ExI type isn't necessarily very social or people-pleasing. That's more of an Fe thing and I argue that Keirsey's NF temperament is heavily biased by this perception.
    So in Jung, you're dom. Fi, but your "persona" measured by MBTI is dom. Ti? I don't see how that would happen.

    Again, the two types may come off the same way to people, because they share the same Interaction Style.
    But then if the "Jungian" Fi is more like Fe, and Te is more like Ti (At least for introverts), then perhaps Socionics is picking up inferior Fe, and hence assuming you're "F"?
    But I told you that I'm melancholic, not supine or phlegmatic.

    I don't think you will find that phlegmatic will necessarily correspond to enneagram this way, but based on what I read about phlegmatic, it sounds more like 9 behavior and think (avoiding conflict, seeking peace of mind) than 5. 5 can be very aggressive and conflict-seeking in the intellectual arena due to them ultimately being power-seekers and have a connection to 8. Also, 5 is a very emotionally sensitive type and can be prone to extreme moodiness if 4 wing and the influence is strong like it is in my case. It thus makes perfect sense that 5w4 would be melancholic because as you find in the melancholic description, they can be very intellectual and socially aloof.
    That's right; I forgot you said you were Melancholic. Again, for an INTP to come out as Melancholic or E5, my theory, is that he's really a combo of 4 OR 6 (or 9) with 8, and these "mellow out" to an average "5" behavior. I know mixing those types, outside the adjacent "wings", or the tritypes, isn't allowed; but that's why I'm not pushing Enneagram correlations. I can clearly identify with 6 (or 4) and 8, which fit Supine and Choleric, but I too usually end up coming out heavily 5 (and with the adjacent 6 or 4 close by).

    So yes, 9 is the most Phlegmatic, but since it is so peaceful, this is like the opposite of Choleric (8), and Supine (2, 4 or 6) is even further opposite of Choleric. So when you add them together, you will get the reservedness of the Phlegmatic or Supine plus the criticalness of the Choleric, and reserved/critical (introverted/task) is Melancholic. It's just a matter of sorting out the blended temperament needs according to the different "areas of need".
    But I am not talking about the widely accepted definition of introversion-extroversion. I am specifically talking about cognitive introversion or extroversion which is very different to the introversion-extroversion you have in fact described. Cognitive introversion and extroversion is as you know, something Jung wrote extensively on because it denotes our cognitive bias in which we view the world through. Is it objective or subjetive? There is no varying scale here.

    I think there is a fine line to walk here between when we talk about innate preferences aka temperaments and then trying to tie these further and prove them using current Pcyhometrics matrices. Would innate introversion probably appear in these matrices? Yes, both the Big 5 and MBTI measure them. But does this necessarily relate to Jung's way of defining introversion-extroversion? No, it doesn't. There are a lot of people who mistype thinking they are cognitive introverts (they wear a letter code starting with I instead of E) because they see themselves as social introverts. That they also focus on extroverted tasks here is irrelevant because this is still not what I am talking about. I am talking about whether your mind is cognitively biased towards introversion or extroversion but if you focus on the objective world or the subjective world of things.
    Yes, as I acknowledged, cognitive E/I is either/or. I believe behavioral E/I is rooted in the cognitive (The "dominant attitude" that develops first. Both E/I and J/P are said to be the first letters to develop). Learned behavior and "masks" can alter this, and the manifestation of the "needs" is what can be "moderate". The people who have that problem you describe are probably moderate, and each test will measure traits in a way that push them one way or the other. But while their "temperament need" can be moderate, their true Jungian preference will be either/or, even if the clarity of it is low.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  9. #29
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Socionics is a theory of relationship compatibility. So if he's saying something like "different roles in society" get along best with one another, that's on him, the dumby.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Entropic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    1,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    It's complicated because of what I said, where people trying to tie j/p to J/P claim that the INTp's "Ni""acts like" the INTP's Ne, and "Te" "acts like" Ti. ("acting" wasn't literal, referring to the person, but rather how the functions' characteristics were described.
    I don't understand this logic since the functions operate in a very delineated way in socionics, and the only way you'd confuse them is because you are bad at differentating them in people.

    The true Jungian concept, is that Fi simply is a personal valuation that references an internal "standard". The whole "focused on one's self" description is easily misunderstood, and often portrayed as "selfish", and even antisocial, but that, again, might more closely fit the tertiary/inferior ("less mature", I call it) manifestation of the function for TJ's.
    I know inferior Fi types who don't come across like that at all. I think that description would if anything if so fit many Fi dominant types better based on what I've personally observed. So I don't think you can say that a person will always act like this because of the position of their function attitude in the system. Maturity doesn't occur linearly in people and just because you favor a cognitive function attitude it doesn't mean you use it well either.

    So I think the FP would be just as much into people, but rather than directly referencing group values, they'll reference a more universalistic sense of values they have internalized, which they then use to gauge other people's true needs. So you can't entirely say "focus on their feelings rather than that of others". Their internal standards do reach out to "consider" others.
    As a Jungian Fi dominant I just have to disagree with this. I think it's perhaps the most noticeable when it comes to judging people but it doesn't mean it's always used to evaluate people. Even Lenore Thomson gives a good description of this of the spaghetti sauce example she provides and how Fi is used to measure the taste.

    If the Fi is dominant, then, it will likely manifest as the typical Supine trait of wanting people, but not expressing this need to them (They'll then use inferior Te "tasks" to try to in acceptance through forms of "service").
    I'm sorry Eric B, but I think you're stereotyping here. I don't think you can say that every Fi dominant must be supine. I don't think reality is that simple. People are more complex than that.

    And I think that's an important indicator of what's "preferred", inside. That's now been added as an extension of the type code. Four letters, and one or more numbers. I would have liked to be able to say that the E types correspond to type (via Interaction styles and Keirsey temperaments, through instinctual variants that can have stackings of different types), but that's even harder to sell, so I've pretty much laid off of Enneagram for now.
    So in Jung, you're dom. Fi, but your "persona" measured by MBTI is dom. Ti? I don't see how that would happen.
    Because as I told you, they measure different things. MBTI measures persona, not my cognitive thinking. They have different purposes so therefore they also naturally measure different things. I don't think enneatype is going to correspond to anything in particular when it comes to cognition more than perhaps certain cognition styles will have a preference towards specific coping mechanisms. I for example theorize that Fe types would be more likely to fall back on an enneagram 9 coping style simply because there is a certain overlap in the cognizant thought of the E9 and Fe about avoiding conflict and seeking external harmony. Not say it's always like that but it's an interesting overlap.

    Again, the two types may come off the same way to people, because they share the same Interaction Style.
    But then if the "Jungian" Fi is more like Fe, and Te is more like Ti (At least for introverts), then perhaps Socionics is picking up inferior Fe, and hence assuming you're "F"?
    I don't understand how Jungian Fi is more like Fe? Fi is still Fi for introverts and Te still Te for introverts and so on. Socionics is definitely not picking up inferior Fe. It's properly picking up my inferior Te. It's the MBTI is the system that falsely picks up my inferior Te as dominant Ti.

    That's right; I forgot you said you were Melancholic. Again, for an INTP to come out as Melancholic or E5, my theory, is that he's really a combo of 4 OR 6 (or 9) with 8, and these "mellow out" to an average "5" behavior. I know mixing those types, outside the adjacent "wings", or the tritypes, isn't allowed; but that's why I'm not pushing Enneagram correlations. I can clearly identify with 6 (or 4) and 8, which fit Supine and Choleric, but I too usually end up coming out heavily 5 (and with the adjacent 6 or 4 close by).
    Aside as a very weak wing, I'm most definitely a 5 core with a strong 4 wing. The 6 influence isn't prominent and I'm most definitely not of the triple reactive tritype. I could see why some would think I'm 1 for gut but regardless, 4 and 5 are most definitely correct, and so are the wings and so is my instictual stacking. So I don't think you can make the connections you're making here. It's too simplistic again. A 4 is not always going to be supine or choleric for example. I can very well see a 4w5 as being melancholic. I'd in fact opine that melancholic is probably more fit for the 4 overall than supine, phlegmatic or choleric would be.

    So yes, 9 is the most Phlegmatic, but since it is so peaceful, this is like the opposite of Choleric (8), and Supine (2, 4 or 6) is even further opposite of Choleric. So when you add them together, you will get the reservedness of the Phlegmatic or Supine plus the criticalness of the Choleric, and reserved/critical (introverted/task) is Melancholic. It's just a matter of sorting out the blended temperament needs according to the different "areas of need".
    You entirely lost me here. I think you're trying too hard to cross-map two systems that really have no correlations than possible external behavior traits, but since people are unique it won't be that simple, especially since the enneagram theory also operates on behavior ranges due to its health levels.

    Yes, as I acknowledged, cognitive E/I is either/or. I believe behavioral E/I is rooted in the cognitive (The "dominant attitude" that develops first. Both E/I and J/P are said to be the first letters to develop). Learned behavior and "masks" can alter this, and the manifestation of the "needs" is what can be "moderate". The people who have that problem you describe are probably moderate, and each test will measure traits in a way that push them one way or the other. But while their "temperament need" can be moderate, their true Jungian preference will be either/or, even if the clarity of it is low.
    But why even work that way then since it's clearly confusing and obfuscating Jung's work? Most people realize that the I/E letter is quite useless in determining their actual cognition. They think they are Ne dom but only 80% extroverted. Do you see why this makes no sense? It's like they are saying their Ne preference only works 80% of the time; the rest of the time they utilize Ni.

    I was waiting for the day you and I would meet.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Youtuber | The Typologist Blog | Redditor | Message me!

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI vs socionics j/p
    By Poki in forum Socionics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-10-2014, 06:33 PM
  2. Socionics Online Meetup #2: MBTI vs. Socionics
    By HandiAce in forum Socionics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 03:12 PM
  3. MBTI vs. Socionics: Which one is better?
    By Idontcare in forum Socionics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 02:13 PM
  4. MBTI vs Socionics
    By Athenian200 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 12:56 PM
  5. MBTI vs Socionics
    By Urchin in forum Socionics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 07:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO