MBTI vs Socionics

[Eric B]

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION], I am not sure I have energy to continue this because it's clearly just going in circles but anyway:

Sorry bout that.

I think you're pretty strongly implied this at some level. If you didn't you've communicated it poorly:

So essentially, even when you're saying it doesn't you kind of say it does even though Lenore's example doesn't mention anything about people. Which one is it? Either it has nothing to do with people per se it or does but if it doesn't, then why do you continually inject the notion that Fi would somehow at some level still make a judgement including other people?

I am beginning to suspect inferior Fe projection on your part.

My point at first was to debunk the whole notion of it being "selfish", or however it was phrased, and show that it can consider people. So I simply referenced the spaghetti sauce example to show how it could consider others.
The idea that the sauce could be for others was one possible scenario. That it could be only for himself was the other. You thought I was negating the latter, but I wasn't.

Then why even opine it in the first place that the correlation is as strong as you clearly suggest it is?

Then why were you so certain that I must be phlegmatic or supine because I told you I'm a Jungian INFP?

If I had remembered you saying you were Melancholic in an earlier discussion, I probably wouldn't have (didn't mean to diverge this far off of MBTI vs Socionics). I only added that as a possible idea, especially since were throwing Enneagram into it so much, which to me is very similar to classic temperament.

Well, ok, I'm going to make it simple for you. Here's a random 5 description written by Riso and Hudson: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/typefive.asp#.UVMxVVeRfXI

Here's a random INTP profile portrait: http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html

You must clearly see the similarity between the two descriptions? Even Naranjo himself associates the INTP type with enneatype 5, Ti, Si and Fi.

In that first quote, I see iNtuition and Thinking in general. In other words, NT, which, according to Keirsey and Berens, all share a need for "mastery" and "knowledge", which we clearly see there.

If you go to the INTJ page of the other site: http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html you'll see a lot of the same stuff. What's missing in the Riso/Hudson description is the Te/J focus on "planning", "efficiency", "systems and organization", etc.

I shouldn't even argue this point, because I'm not denying that Ti types can be 5, and the Naranjo reference would be what I was asking for. (Why Fi for an INTP? Did you mean Fe, or is he following either Lenore or Socionics, which says SeFi are the second "block" for INTP's?)

Yes, because it's misleading and all it does is confuse people.

And I don't think for most of the part they are actually genuinely accurate because it confuses type too much with persona. So it still begs the question, why measure it like that?

Yes, but that's the problem, you ask them to identify with descriptions which might very well simply reinforce their persona.

OK, so that's the heart of the issue, then. You believe the questions are asking the wrong things, basically; pertaining to persona.

And you seem to acknowledge that these tests can be inaccurate, which as I would put it, be falsified by tapping into persona behavior just as much as MBTI.

But you seem to feel MBTI theory is indelibly tied to persona, where Jung and Socionics, outside of the tests, go by interaction, which is more accurate.
Does that cover your argument?

It stands for information element and is simply the same word as function except it also connotes a specific function position in a person's psyche.

OK, thanks. By function position, I take it you mean dom., aux. etc.; right?

 

[Entropic]

My point at first was to debunk the whole notion of it being "selfish", or however it was phrased, and show that it can consider people. So I simply referenced the spaghetti sauce example to show how it could consider others.
The idea that the sauce could be for others was one possible scenario. That it could be only for himself was the other. You thought I was negating the latter, but I wasn't.

I cannot once remember ever suggesting that Fi is selfish in such a sense. My point has always been that Fi doesn't include judgements about people necessarily. That's a stereotype NF bias that's simply not true.

If I had remembered you saying you were Melancholic in an earlier discussion, I probably wouldn't have (didn't mean to diverge this far off of MBTI vs Socionics). I only added that as a possible idea, especially since were throwing Enneagram into it so much, which to me is very similar to classic temperament.

I kind of disagree. Enneagram is far deeper.

In that first quote, I see iNtuition and Thinking in general. In other words, NT, which, according to Keirsey and Berens, all share a need for "mastery" and "knowledge", which we clearly see there.

If you go to the INTJ page of the other site: http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html you'll see a lot of the same stuff. What's missing in the Riso/Hudson description is the Te/J focus on "planning", "efficiency", "systems and organization", etc.

I shouldn't even argue this point, because I'm not denying that Ti types can be 5, and the Naranjo reference would be what I was asking for. (Why Fi for an INTP? Did you mean Fe, or is he following either Lenore or Socionics, which says SeFi are the second "block" for INTP's?)

I never said you cannot be a 5 and an Ti type. However, as I clearly laid out, there's a stereotype correlation between the two which is false.

OK, so that's the heart of the issue, then. You believe the questions are asking the wrong things, basically; pertaining to persona.

And you seem to acknowledge that these tests can be inaccurate, which as I would put it, be falsified by tapping into persona behavior just as much as MBTI.

Not just tests. The entire MBTI foundation is based around this idea. If it wasn't the case, then why do you even bring up things such as "clarity of function" or "auxiliary is more apparent" or "J/P is like this or that". They all measure what we show externally ergo persona.

OK, thanks. By function position, I take it you mean dom., aux. etc.; right?

Yes, except socionics doesn't use that terminology. In socionics the third function is the vulnerable which is located in the superego.

 

[Eric B]

I cannot once remember ever suggesting that Fi is selfish in such a sense. My point has always been that Fi doesn't include judgement about people necessarily. That's a stereotype NF bias that's simply not true.

That was sparked off by the whole "Don't call me; I'll call you" thing, which I was applying to temperament, and you applied to Fi. So that reminded me of this popular perception of Fi as "selfish", or "everyone else be damned", I've even seen.
My point was I don't think that's often how it manifests for FP's (when it's preferred, and likely more mature). That's more of a negative TJ manifestation of it.

 

[Entropic]

That was sparked off by the whole "Don't call me; I'll call you" thing, which I was applying to temperament, and you applied to Fi. So that reminded me of this popular perception of Fi as "selfish", or "everyone else be damned", I've even seen.
My point was I don't think that's often how it manifests for FP's (when it's preferred, and likely more mature). That's more of a negative TJ manifestation of it.

Please explain to me how that statement is selfish?

 

[Eric B]

I didn't say it was, necessarily; I said it reminded me of that notion.

 

[Entropic]

I didn't say it was, necessarily; I said it reminded me of that notion.

But you still bring it up in relation to tertiary and inferior Fi types, to show it's an immature use of Fi and my entire point is that it doesn't have to be, and I could very well say this as well. "Please don't call me, I call you back". I don't think it's a sign of immaturity or even selfishness. I mean, obviously you must at some level perceive it that way because why otherwise bring it up at all or phrase it that way? Reminded of or not, it's clearly a part of your perception of Fi since you used it as an example thereof to show immature use of it.

But whatever.

 

[Eric B]

I didn't say you could never say that (and that's really describing an attitude; not a literal statement).
But Fi is often described as making the FP more acquiescent toward others. The only criteria is that an important value isn't violated. But if it isn't, then the attitude is more like "If this person thinks he needs whatever he's asking for me, and if it's good for him, then I should give it to him".
When you applied "don't call me; I'll call you" to Fi, it sounded like it missed this aspect of preferred Fi as many descriptions do. IT wasn't about whether you ever say that, or always do something for others.