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.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.
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?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.Then why were you so certain that I must be phlegmatic or supine because I told you I'm a Jungian INFP?
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.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/ty...p#.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.
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?)
OK, so that's the heart of the issue, then. You believe the questions are asking the wrong things, basically; pertaining to persona.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.
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?
OK, thanks. By function position, I take it you mean dom., aux. etc.; right?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.