User Tag List

First 789101119 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 265

Thread: The beta quadra

  1. #81
    #KUWK Kierva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    It might just further up the possibility that you would test as INFp (NiFe) in Socionics.

    Cognitive functions in one system ought to be the same as cognitive functions in the other (regardless of what the fools say).

    The quadras just group the 4 types that have the same "normal" functions in MBTI.

    Iow, both the introverted and extroverted types that share the same last three letters.

    And then those two types' anima/animus (so the NFPs and the STJs, or the NTJs and the SFPs, etc).

    All of Socionics' major elements make tons of sense MBTI-wise, as long as you accept that the cognitive functions of an individual should be the same in both systems.

    If you throw that assumption out the window, then it just becomes a giant stupid clusterfuck with no compatibility whatsoever.

    Does it make more sense that one would be use Ne and Fi as one's top two functions in both systems?

    Or Ne and Fi in one system, and Ni and Fe in the other system?

    Even though both systems are derived from Jung?

    Ignore tests. Ignore dichotomies. Ignore type descriptions.

    Focus on the functions, and all the dumb, unnecessary complications go away.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I'd like to add that the N and T function definitions are similar. Socionics Fi is similar to MBTI's Fi, but socionics' Fe adds emphasis on expressing emotions.

    The S functions are totally different.

    More reading here: http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml everything you'll ever need
    C#2-C#5-F#5
    3 octaves, 2 notes and 1 semitone
    Supported range: F#2-F#4-C#5

  2. #82
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleV View Post
    The cognitive functions should be the same because both systems are deriving them from the same person, Jung. But when defining oneself using a system, one would have to go by its rules... or else it wouldn't be applicable.
    You're letting Ti slip you up.

    You need some objectivity up in that beast.

    There is such a thing as external reality.

    These systems are useless if they're not helping describe it.

    Just because you start using Socionics as opposed to MBTI does not mean external reality suddenly changes along with you.

    Both systems are attempting to describe the same external reality.

    The fact that they paint the picture a little differently doesn't mean one's functions should change from one system to the other.

    If Jung's cognitive functions are worthwhile at all at describing external reality, then one's functions should be the same in each system.

    For instance, Extraversion in the Big Five doesn't necessarily equate to Extraversion in the MBTI
    Meh, bleh.

    Introversion and extroversion exist on a spectrum.

    A lot of people fall near the middle.

    I don't really find this point at all invalidates what I said about Socionics and MBTI.

    There is just too much support for trait theory... and it's consistent with the core elements of science.
    People will find this heinous, but science schmience.

    The problem with the scientific method is that it only cares about things that it can empirically test for (which is by no means everything).

    That's why trait theory gets played up so much in academia -- because it can be tested for empirically.

    But that doesn't mean type isn't actually the better way of looking at things, nor just as true, if not truer.

    It just means that it can't be easily empirically tested for, and, as such, the scientific method doesn't have much it can say about it.

    This then causes it to fall out of favor amongst the academic establishment, who requires such things to be empirically tested.

    It's like the story of the two men on a dark stage, with a lamppost in the middle of the state.

    One of them is looking at the ground, seemingly searching for something, only in the area that the light from the lamppost encompasses.

    The other man asks the man who is looking for something, "What are you doing?"

    The man who is looking says, "I'm looking for my quarter."

    The other man says, "Well, did you drop it by the lamppost?"

    The man who is looking says, "No. I dropped it over there. [points off stage] But this is the only place where there's light."

  3. #83
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vetani View Post
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I'd like to add that the N and T function definitions are similar. Socionics Fi is similar to MBTI's Fi, but socionics' Fe adds emphasis on expressing emotions.

    The S functions are totally different.

    More reading here: http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml everything you'll ever need
    Thanks.

    I have noticed that about the S functions.

    Si in Socionics focuses much more on bodily sensations and awareness.

    Se in Socionics seems to have a very Te-flavored forcefulness to it.

    I still don't think that changes what I've said, though.

    Those are just different focuses the Socionics theorists have put on those particular function-attitudes.

    And I think there's some amount of reality to what they say about them, and that their interpretations should be taken into account.

    It still stands, tho, that, if you're an SiTe user in one system, you should be an SiTe user in the other (and so on).

  4. #84
    #KUWK Kierva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post

    It still stands, tho, that, if you're an SiTe user in one system, you should be an SiTe user in the other (and so on).
    IMO, it's a bit hard to find equivalents for some types.

    Take ESI, for example. If we go by Socionics' definitions, they're described as hard-line moralists who achieve the things they want (FiSe).

    By MBTI's caricature, ISFP (FiSe), they're described as easy-going people who adapt to the outer world, while still maintaining their morals.

    ISFJ (SiFe) is described as reserved traditionalists who value group ethics. How?
    C#2-C#5-F#5
    3 octaves, 2 notes and 1 semitone
    Supported range: F#2-F#4-C#5

  5. #85
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vetani View Post
    IMO, it's a bit hard to find equivalents for some types.
    I don't think finding equivalents is the right aim, tho.

    The right aim is trying to find the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vetani View Post
    Take ESI, for example. If we go by Socionics' definitions, they're described as hard-line moralists who achieve the things they want (FiSe).

    By MBTI's caricature, ISFP (FiSe), they're described as easy-going people who adapt to the outer world, while still maintaining their morals.
    For example, in this case, I see no problem at all.

    The truth likely lies somewhere in between.

    Maybe a little bit of both.

    Maybe some individuals are a little more like one.

    While others are a little more like the other.

    Pretty simple solution, if you ask me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vetani View Post
    ISFJ (SiFe) is described as reserved traditionalists who value group ethics. How?
    That's only the MBTI characterization.

    What's the Socionics one?

    Kinda sensualistic harlots, no?

    You ever met our @Giggly?

    Sometimes I'm not sure which she is?

    Both, perhaps?


  6. #86
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Oh god can't believe this thread turned into a socionics debate.

  7. #87
    Just a note... LittleV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    You're letting Ti slip you up.

    You need some objectivity up in that beast.

    There is such a thing as external reality.

    These systems are useless if they're not helping describe it.

    Just because you start using Socionics as opposed to MBTI does not mean external reality suddenly changes along with you.

    Both systems are attempting to describe the same external reality.

    The fact that they paint the picture a little differently doesn't mean one's functions should change from one system to the other.

    If Jung's cognitive functions are worthwhile at all at describing external reality, then one's functions should be the same in each system.
    This was also what I was saying in my piece; I'd agreed with this. I was just noting that utilizing a system also means going along with its internal consistency.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Meh, bleh.

    Introversion and extroversion exist on a spectrum.

    A lot of people fall near the middle.

    I don't really find this point at all invalidates what I said about Socionics and MBTI.
    There's much more that lies on a continuum (genes can also change) that shouldn't be discounted; it's good (and difficult) to simplify things to its core parts... but it's also important not to forget that seeing all of the other pieces could help improve the existing system.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    People will find this heinous, but science schmience.

    The problem with the scientific method is that it only cares about things that it can empirically test for (which is by no means everything).

    That's why trait theory gets played up so much in academia -- because it can be tested for empirically.

    But that doesn't mean type isn't actually the better way of looking at things, nor just as true, if not truer.

    It just means that it can't be easily empirically tested for, and, as such, the scientific method doesn't have much it can say about it.

    This then causes it to fall out of favor amongst the academic establishment, who requires such things to be empirically tested.

    It's like the story of the two men on a dark stage, with a lamppost in the middle of the state.

    One of them is looking at the ground, seemingly searching for something, only in the area that the light from the lamppost encompasses.

    The other man asks the man who is looking for something, "What are you doing?"

    The man who is looking says, "I'm looking for my quarter."

    The other man says, "Well, did you drop it by the lamppost?"

    The man who is looking says, "No. I dropped it over there. [points off stage] But this is the only place where there's light."
    I see what you're saying about what science can and cannot test. I find that there's value on both sides... and that you'd first have to work with what you have rather than try something with insufficient resources. I've been around a lot of Te types lately... which has helped balance me a lot, even though this wasn't my choice. I've been told not to bring in any ideas that cannot be tested, even if it'd make internal sense in every way. I've had to change my tactics a lot... so I know what you mean, but I thought I should also validate the other side. I appreciate you trying to 'Ti' with me with the metaphor, nonetheless.

  8. #88
    #KUWK Kierva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Enneagram
    3w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    2,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    For example, in this case, I see no problem at all.

    The truth likely lies somewhere in between.

    Maybe a little bit of both.

    Maybe some individuals are a little more like one.

    While others are a little more like the other.

    Pretty simple solution, if you ask me.
    Point taken.



    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    That's only the MBTI characterization.

    What's the Socionics one?

    Kinda sensualistic harlots, no?

    You ever met our @Giggly?

    Sometimes I'm not sure which she is?

    Both, perhaps?

    Maybe? I wouldn't know, haven't talked to her much. But you're right about the sensualistic harlots part.
    C#2-C#5-F#5
    3 octaves, 2 notes and 1 semitone
    Supported range: F#2-F#4-C#5

  9. #89
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    Both systems describe the same functions but in a different way. The fact that the wording is different (Se socionics = sensing power vaccuums and motivation: vs : MBTI Se, using 5 senses in a tangible way).

    The stereotypes are not the same, however.

  10. #90
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azure Flame View Post
    Both systems describe the same functions but in a different way. The fact that the wording is different (Se socionics = sensing power vaccuumit and motivation: vs : MBTI Se, using 5 senses in a tangible way).

    The stereotypes are not the same, however.
    True.

    But I think one can learn a bit about the actual types from both.

    As I said before: the truth lies somewhere in between.

    Wrt ESFPs/SEEs: consider the effect growing up in the communist Soviet Union vs free market America would have on what characteristics of the type manifest more prominently, and thus what is observed more readily in each environment (it's almost like typological epigenetics).

    In the Soviet bloc, you're gunna see their hard-scrapping, cut-throat, try-to-get-by in this corrupt, under-producing society. Kind of a "how does an ESFP look when you throw them into a bleak, rigid environment, with strong social rules, and not much income or economic vibrancy".

    Versus throwing them into a free-wheeling capitalistic society that encourages them to work hard and party harder. Where they can earn their paycheck, and then go blow it up their noses, or on whatever myriad sensorial pleasures they can find within their vicinity.

    It's still the same core personality, it just must respond a bit differently to each environment.

    And the stereotypes, observations, and descriptions (both profile and functional) will follow from those.

Similar Threads

  1. Beta Quadra Video Examples
    By Stansmith in forum Socionics
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-01-2015, 05:36 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 11:42 AM
  3. Can anyone distinguish the Alpha Beta Gamma Delta archetypes for me...
    By Zangetshumody in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 10-26-2013, 01:15 PM
  4. The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta
    By Speed Gavroche in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 02-25-2012, 03:30 AM

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