The PoLR Thread

[yeghor]

You said you checked the Te suggestive in an above post, was it this?

Everyone is afraid of and loathes being bullied, but what makes you a Vulnerable Se?

Furthermore, based on objective reasoning outside of the self, why do you believe the Vulnerable function is the Inferior Function?

I just can't bring myself to hitting someone as if there's some kind of mental block there.

About the last question why do you believe inferior is suggestive?

 

[yeghor]

You said you checked the Te suggestive in an above post, was it this?

No I checked it in http://www.sociotype.com/ page.

 

[yeghor]

[MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION] before we move on we need to establish something:

Which MBTI type does this description sound like?

Socionics Types: LSI-ISTj

LSIs are often arduous producers of logical structures, models, principles, rules, and order. In general, their lifestyle is at least partly organized according to the rules they impute to the world, which are paramount to their experiences. They may typically tend to conceptualize the world around them in terms of fixed categories, and can exhibit well-developed preferences for one category of things over another. Often, LSIs' interpretation of the world is directed towards existing social structures; their rules and guidelines pertaining to the behavior and actions of others; if LIIs are stereotypically the abstract physicists, building systems and thought structures that have little to do with "real world" life, LSIs might likewise stereotypically represent hard-line military officers, making sure that everyone stays in line. LSIs can often integrate into their rule-based framework the conventions of the predominant social order, and they may be vocally critical or judgmental of those that fail to follow the real or imagined conventions ascribed to them. LSIs can also sometimes be sticklers for minutiae in rule-based systems; they may have little sympathy or leeway for those individuals who require exemptions (along the lines of "no, sir, this bus must leave exactly at 7:30").

Many LSIs give off a sense of certitude and absolution. They can quickly and easily schematize what is correct and incorrect according to the systems they are familiar with and may appear to be absolutely certain of their views, unable to represent any ambiguity in the principles that they put forward. This may take the form of stringent intellectual, political, or other viewpoints, or simply in a high degree of confidence in the principles they put forward towards the social environment around them. LSIs, moreso than any other type, are likely to have firmly unchanging views over a long period of time. Even when LSIs do not have firm, unchanging viewpoints, they may parade their current opinions with brash conviction, as though the logic of their thoughts is sound and irrefutable. Of course, many LSIs are much less extreme in their viewpoints, and can instead come across as apathetic about enforcing their viewpoints, or primarily sociable in their orientation.

Intellectually, LSIs, like other Ti types, are often most interested in determining underlying principles, causal mechanisms, and systems to account for real-world phenomena. They may have a tendency see the principles that they develop as universal and without exception. Additionally, they usually tend to emphasize the consistency and importance of their espoused rules, principles or ideological perspectives to a greater extent than the external evidence supporting these rules, which is often a much less poignant aspect of their thought processes.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

[MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION] before we move on we need to establish something:

Which MBTI type does this description sound like?

Socionics Types: LSI-ISTj

No. Descriptions are shit. Do not use them.

 

[yeghor]

No. Descriptions are shit. Do not use them.

why do you use socionics instead of mbti then?

is it better than mbti? in what way?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I just can't bring myself to hitting someone as if there's some kind of mental block there.

About the last question why do you believe inferior is suggestive?

ANIMA (inferior, aspirational)
What it is about, and which function it encases:

The collecting place of our sense of "otherness", including life, libido and and instinctual energies. The word means "soul". Shaped largely by the parent of the opposite sex, projected onto those we fall in love with (Duality is based on the Dual-Seeking Suggestive Function), and encases the inferior function.

We likely feel inferior in both the internal or external orientation, and the functional perspective associated with the inferior. (Role + Suggestive, shadow inferior, inferior, same function preference. One is inferior due to its absence, the other is inferior due to its presence as your main character flaw)

Possible drawbacks from the emotionally freighted sense of connecting with life:

We (at least unconsciously) feel we would be best completed in the orientation by someone by our side who somehow fulfills the perspective. (Since this is a projection onto the person, they are not necessarily a type that prefers the function). (Wow, this sounds rather Dual-Seeking, doesn't it?)

I imagine this might come out in the emotional images that surface when we think of a beautiful romantic day:

I imagine this might come out in the emotional images that surface when we think of a beautiful romantic day:

• ISxJ's exploring new possibilities, to "create new memories". (Ne)
• INxJ's enjoying rigorous tangible experience together, and extracting meaning from it. (Se)
• IxTP's strolling through a beautiful setting involving an atmosphere colored by other people; admiring technical things. (Fe)
• IxFP's working side by side at some sort of logical organization with a humanitarian purpose. (Te)
• ESxP's someone to get lost with in a world of conceptual frameworks such as archetypes and symbolism, and then realizing their dreams. (Ni)
• ENxP's enjoying nostalgia together, and exploring them as exciting possibilities (Si)
• ExTJ's someone who gives them a sense of personal integrity, giving them further incentive for their logical ordering. (Fi)
• ExFJ's exploring technical wonders, and feeling connected through this. (Ti)

[Does this sound like the Vulnerable function? Enjoyment? Because I think we can file this one under Suggestive.]

Yet in real life, no one can ever fulfill this ideal companion, so we tend to just find fault with people who use the opposite perspective. (Ego Clinging, for example, INxJ's think that SP's are a bit too impulsive, IxTP's complain about Fe-types attempting to moderate them, while secretly liking it)

Since in the typical Beebe order where the eight are evenly divided four and four, the inferior usually falls on the "ego-syntonic" side, where the next four are "ego-dystonic" and negative.

So Berens includes it with the first three as generally positive, having a negative side, rather than generally negative, having positive side. (I want you to read this 7 times over, Suggestive over Vulnerable hands down, you cannot argue this point.

So the "negative" side of this "aspirational" function she calls "projective"; and often the first aspect of it experienced. We "project our fears, shoulds and negativities onto others". What happens, is that it basically shapes ideals we feel inferior in, which are then projected outward at others by thinking of them as what they "should" do. (Probably where the confusion lay, as the Vulnerable Function and Suggestive function are highly similar, but this is indicative of Duality, as we project other's use of the function as somewhat negative, and attempt to help them by providing a complementary insight from the function on the other side of the axis (ego clinging), if someone is using Se recklessly, help them with Ni and have them think about why they are doing what they are doing)

In reality, it is all the shadows or unconscious complexes that get projected onto others. Of course, this harmonized with standard four-process theory, where the inferior IS considered to be the whole "shadow". (Definitions of Conscious-Unconscious are different in JCF and Socionics, in JCF, "conscious" functions are the ones that are valued, "unconscious functions" are those which are not (except inf., as it is valued and the "gateway to the unconscious", in Socionics, the functions are valued by what you consciously engage (The Strongest Ego Block information and the Weakest Super-Ego Block information) and what has an unconscious influence on you (The Super-Id, The Id)

So that is another aspect of the inferior projection besides just the opposite gender stuff (Inferior actually doesn't represent the opposite gender for everyone, it can be different for those who are not heterosexual, but this is still indicative of Dual-Seeking Suggestive).

We see others as completing us (i.e. we're inferior), but we need to see this completeness in ourselves. We need to become better at what we feel inferior at ourselves, rather than placing demands on others. (This is the epitome of the Suggestive Function, this is another point inarguable, as it completely ruins any kind of basis for Vulnerable = Inferior)

In the deeper Jungian concept, there is also a whole sense of "libido" or "life-giving energy" we tend to project onto the opposite sex (especially men projecting onto women). When we come to see this in ourselves, we will withdraw the projections, and also again gain more access to the unconscious. The anima/animus then becomes a "sage", and ultimately, an inner source of wisdom. There are two links on the anima below (Donald Kalsched, Paul Watsky) which will provide more information on this. (That speaks for itself, though "the unconscious" here is not talking about the shadow complexes)

What is trying to be brought into consciousness is the need to own the shadow; what is "not I", the ego-dystonic; and a good place to start is with the [yet ego-syntonic] perspective of the opposite function and orientation together.

Now, to "the shadow" (The Shadow Complexes), proper.
"The Shadow" was originally (to Jung) a single archetype that gets projected onto our enemies. In this model, it is of course divided into four distinct roles, shadowing the primary archetypes. (In the older model, it is just the inferior itself. So in this model, the inferior or anima/animus is often called "the bridge" to the unconscious). (And there is our Vulnerable Function)

Source:From Eric B's beautifully presentation of the Beebe Model, and who is more qualified than the both of us put together.

Oh, and look, he even did something with Socionics and Beebe's Model

It has also been outlined in Socionics, by:
Valued (i.e. primary): (The Valued Functions)
1, 2 Strong (Lead, Creative)
3, 4 Weak (Mobilizing, Suggestive)
Subdued (i.e. shadow): (The unvalued functions)
5, 6 Strong (Ignoring, Demonstrative)
7, 8 Weak (Vulnerable, Role)
[Numbers changed to Beebe's stacking order] (i.e., this is what Socionics would look like if Model A were built to look like the Jungian system.)

Honestly, you could have done a better correlation explanation by simply saying "Role sounds like something a Trickster would do, and Vulnerable sounds like something dear or close, something that needs protecting" (which of course, aren't the case and are completely fucking wrong).

Suggestive Dual Seeking = Inferior. Hands Down.

 

[yeghor]

Yet in real life, no one can ever fulfill this ideal companion, so we tend to just find fault with people who use the opposite perspective. (Ego Clinging, for example, INxJ's think that SP's are a bit too impulsive, IxTP's complain about Fe-types attempting to moderate them, while secretly liking it).

This description of anima is about Se in INxJs. I am irritated by Se especially when used by people of the same sex whereas admire it in opposite sex (perhaps because I subconsciously want to integrate it into my system thru procreation).

In MBTI INFJs, Se is the inferior (4th) function.

In socionics INFjs, Se is in the vulnerable function position. So this should mean vulnerable function in socionics is the anima animus as an archetype as well as the inferior function in MBTI.

Your error is stemming from thinking that INFJ = INFp in socionics.

You don't rely on type descriptions. So how do you know that MBTI INFJ = Socionics INFp? Just by dominant function?

I am telling you. The conversion thing is incorrect. Anything based on that conversion is wrong.

Show me how the conversion from socionics to MBTI hold true, in simple terminology please.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

This description of anima is about Se in INxJs. I am irritated by Se especially when used by people of the same sex whereas admire it in opposite sex (perhaps because I subconsciously want to integrate it into my system thru procreation).

In MBTI INFJs, Se is the inferior (4th) function.

In socionics INFjs, Se is in the vulnerable function position. So this should mean vulnerable function in socionics is the anima animus as an archetype as well as the inferior function in MBTI.

Your error is stemming from thinking that INFJ = INFp in socionics.

You don't rely on type descriptions. So how do you know that MBTI INFJ = Socionics INFp? Just by dominant function?

I am telling you. The conversion thing is incorrect. Anything based on that conversion is wrong.

Show me how the conversion from socionics to MBTI hold true, in simple terminology please.

You didn't read anything about that quotation did you? There is no valid argument for Vulnerable = Inferior except from your own personal experience. That is a fallacy.

In socionics INFjs, Se is in the vulnerable function position. So this should mean vulnerable function in socionics is the anima animus as an archetype as well as the inferior function in MBTI.

This, specifically, has no actual reasoning. This is simply you clinging to your warped perceptions. All of the provided evidence I have given you CLEARLY puts Suggestive over Vulnerable for Inferior, yet you choose to cling to the incorrect correlation merely because you "identify" with Se being something that is "vulnerable" instead of what the vulnerable and suggestive functions actually entail. (Oh, look, PoLR Te, you've simply glazed past the evidence for what you specifically believe is right based on how you personally relate instead of what actually is)

In short, you have no true reasoning nor do you have evidence to back up your argument, all you have is personal identification, and you are wrong. I have more evidence and knowledge than you of the system. All you have is the subjective premise that your assumptions of self and understanding of the system is infallible, whereas I have completely dissociated myself from my understanding of the model and have understood the mechanics of the model as it actually is instead of how I specifically harmonize with it.

You have absolutely no evidence, basis, or reasoning that is correct to justify INFJ = EII, and you haven't even provided an argument other than "I don't personally relate".

You are wrong.

I have provided you with reasonable evidence that undoubtedly points to the correlation. Please show me why that evidence is wrong OBJECTIVELY (without relating to yourself) and post your reasoning for why Inferior = Vulnerable.

 

[yeghor]

You didn't read anything about that quotation did you? There is no valid argument for Vulnerable = Inferior except from your own personal experience. That is a fallacy.



This, specifically, has no actual reasoning. This is simply you clinging to your warped perceptions. All of the provided evidence I have given you CLEARLY puts Suggestive over Vulnerable for Inferior, yet you choose to cling to the incorrect correlation merely because you "identify" with Se being something that is "vulnerable" instead of what the vulnerable and suggestive functions actually entail. (Oh, look, PoLR Te, you've simply glazed past the evidence for what you specifically believe is right based on how you personally relate instead of what actually is)

In short, you have no true reasoning nor do you have evidence to back up your argument, all you have is personal identification, and you are wrong. I have more evidence and knowledge than you of the system. All you have is the subjective premise that your assumptions of self and understanding of the system is infallible, whereas I have completely dissociated my self from understanding the model and have understood the mechanics of the model as it actually is instead of how I specifically harmonize with it.

You have absolutely no evidence, basis, or reasoning that is correct to justify INFJ = EII, and you haven't even provided an argument other than "I don't personally relate".

You are wrong.

I have provided you with reasonable evidence that undoubtedly points to the correlation. Please show me why that evidence is wrong OBJECTIVELY (without relating to yourself) and post your reasoning for why Inferior = Vulnerable.

Show me how the conversion from socionics to MBTI hold true, in simple terminology please.

How do you experience you anima IRL?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Show me how the conversion from socionics to MBTI hold true, in simple terminology please.

How do you experience you anima IRL?

"In simple terminology"

Suggestive: Valued in opposite or attracted-to-sex, Positive influence to the lead (with negative overtones when ego clinging), Desirable unconsciously
Anima/Animus: Valued in opposite or attracted-to-sex, Positive influence to the dominant (with negative overtones when ego clinging), Desirable unconsciously

Of course, you will refute this because you can't come to terms with the fact that you are wrong.

My turn:

Objective Evidence for Vulnerable = Inferior. Now. No personal relation. Give me mechanics and impartial knowledge.

 

[yeghor]

"In simple terminology"

Suggestive: Valued in opposite or attracted-to-sex, Positive influence to the lead (with negative overtones when ego clinging), Desirable unconsciously
Anima/Animus: Valued in opposite or attracted-to-sex, Positive influence to the dominant (with negative overtones when ego clinging), Desirable unconsciously

Of course, you will refute this because you can't come to terms with the fact that you are wrong.

My turn:

Objective Evidence for Vulnerable = Inferior. Now. No personal relation. Give me mechanics and impartial knowledge.

Jung says anima animus is what we crave in opposite sex but;

Who says suggestive function is valued in opposite sex? Where does this information come from?

Another question is whether the things that you are citing are based on objective data or subjective interpretation?

What evidence did Jung have when he conceptualized archetypes?

This is what I understand:

Jung -> Functions and archetypes a> MBTI
b> Socionics
c> Beebe

Are all three models the same? Which one is the most accurate? Are they compatible?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Jung says anima animus is what we crave in opposite sex but;

Who says suggestive function is valued in opposite sex? Where does this information come from?

EVERYWHERE. Duality in Socionics, Opposite Sexual Preference for both the Antihero Complex and the Anima/Animus Complex based on Beebe's analysis of Jung's work, and Jung himself stated that the inferior is a type's Anima/Animus, that which must be come to terms with and realized as a true desire/part of you.

They are based off of objective data. You can tell because I'm not personally relating to these constructs and am citing specific evidence (such as the Anima/Animus information from Eric B's analysis of the Beebe's Model). You, on the other hand, can't seem to base anything off of any objective data.

And now we are going to question the evidence that Jung had? You have nothing.

Jung's Archetypes -> Beebe Model, Jungian Cognitive Functions, and MBTI
Jung's Archetypes -> Socionics

Most Accurate -> Socionics + Beebe's Model
Somewhat Accurate -> Jungian Anarchic System
Not Accurate whatsoever -> MBTI.

Compatibility:
Socionics Model A = Beebe's Model
Jungian Anarchic System's Cognitive Functions = Socionics IM Elements
MBTI =/= Socinoics
Jungian Anarchic System under Beebe's Model = Socionics.

Now, please, EVIDENCE for Vulnerable = Inferior.

 

[yeghor]

EVERYWHERE. Duality in Socionics, Opposite Sexual Preference for both the Antihero Complex and the Anima/Animus Complex based on Beebe's analysis of Jung's work, and Jung himself stated that the inferior is a type's Anima/Animus, that which must be come to terms with and realized as a true desire/part of you.

Show me.

They are based off of objective data. You can tell because I'm not personally relating to these constructs and am citing specific evidence (such as the Anima/Animus information from Eric B's analysis of the Beebe's Model). You, on the other hand, can't seem to base anything off of any objective data.

How are they based on objective data? What kind of sample group did Eric B use in his analysis? Or are you just citing someone else's subjective interpretation of the archetypes?

And now we are going to question the evidence that Jung had? You have nothing.

I am trying to understand how you define objective data.

Jung's Archetypes -> Beebe Model, Jungian Cognitive Functions, and MBTI
Jung's Archetypes -> Socionics

Most Accurate -> Socionics + Beebe's Model
Somewhat Accurate -> Jungian Anarchic System
Not Accurate whatsoever -> MBTI.

How did you ascertain this?

Now, please, EVIDENCE for Vulnerable = Inferior.

I have only 1 person in my sampling group. He says that his inferior function is Se in MBTI and he craves it in the opposite sex, therefore his inferior function = anima animus. He also tests as INFj in socionics, whose Vulnerable function = Se. Therefore Vulnerable function = inferior function.

You call this subjective data. What I wonder is how all these model developers checked the accuracy of their model and why you regard their analysis to be based on objective data.

You can increase the sampling group by 1 by analyzing what you crave in the opposite sex and what you loathe in the same sex and by checking whether they are the same and which function it corresponds to in INTp (Which you type yourself as in socionics.)

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I have only 1 person in my sampling group. He says that his inferior function is Se in MBTI and he craves it in the opposite sex, therefore his inferior function = anima animus. He also tests as INFj in socionics, whose Vulnerable function = Se. Therefore Vulnerable function = inferior function.

That isn't credible evidence. Personal experience or relation is NOT evidence, because you don't realize that you can be wrong. In fact, this is the very epitome of Te PoLR, and the only true reasons I can see for you holding on to INFj is that you truly believe you value impartial evidence (which obviously isn't the case) and that you "test" as it, which is another form of personal experience (I personally test as INFj, therefore I must be one, not I might be an INFj because I tested as one). The only good reason I can see you clinging to it is that you desperately want to be proven right that INFJ = INFj, and the only way you can do that is by claiming that you are some magical anomaly, which isn't evidence, and which is a logical fallacy. (specifically under the tree of Anecdotal Evidence, a favorite among Te PoLR's.)

Show me IMPARTIAL EVIDENCE or information that justifies it, and I will bow, otherwise, you are wrong, and I am right, as I have provided perfect evidence for my case that Suggestive = Inferior (that you can't comprehend apparently because its not in "simple-enough terms")*.

*A.K.A, It doesn't line up with what I feel it should be or my own personal experience. (or Te PoLR)

I can also prove you aren't Te Suggestive.

 

[yeghor]

That isn't credible evidence. Personal experience or relation is NOT evidence, because you don't realize that you can be wrong. In fact, this is the very epitome of Te PoLR, and the only true reasons I can see for you holding on to INFj is that you truly believe you value impartial evidence (which obviously isn't the case) and that you "test" as it, which is another form of personal experience (I personally test as INFj, therefore I must be one, not I might be an INFj because I tested as one). The only good reason I can see you clinging to it is that you desperately want to be proven right that INFJ = INFj, and the only way you can do that is by claiming that you are some magical anomaly, which isn't evidence, and which is a logical fallacy. (specifically under the tree of Anecdotal Evidence, a favorite among Te PoLR's.)

Show me IMPARTIAL EVIDENCE or information that justifies it, and I will bow, otherwise, you are wrong, and I am right, as I have provided perfect evidence for my case that Suggestive = Inferior (that you can't comprehend apparently because its not in "simple-enough terms")*.

*A.K.A, It doesn't line up with what I feel it should be or my own personal experience. (or Te PoLR)

I am trying to condense this down to simple terms and you keep expanding it, which is bogging me down.

You didn't provide evidence that suggestive = inferior. You just cited someone else's interpretation about anima animus and then made your own subejctive interpretation as to how that connects to vulnerable function and inferior.

We have jung's own interpretation of anima = A

We have socionics definition of suggestive function = B

We have the term inferior = C

By C, I mean the inferior (4th) function in MBTI. Clarify if you mean something else.

In simple terms, show (by external quotes or other means) that A = B = C.

*****

ANIMA

INxJ's might feel inferior with current tangible experience.

How we project it onto others:

INxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Criticize SP's as reckless

This is talking about Se for INxJs. I don't think there's any doubt about Se being anima arhcetype for INxJs, therefore Anima = Inferior function (in MBTI I guess)

This is not about my type being INxJ. This is coming from Eric's page (which is another subjective interpretation) yet I can confirm the validity of Se being my anima and affecting me in the way Jung conceptualized it.

If we move on to socionics, we are faced with the dilemma as to which type INxJs correspond to in socionics. If we can ascertain that, we can easily find which function in socionics Se corresponds to.

Based on type descriptions, I can confidently say that INxJ = INxj. You say it is rather INxp and disregard type descriptions.

So the deadlock is at the conversion. Why do you assert that INxJ = INxp? How can we confirm whether the conversion holds true?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

You didn't provide evidence that suggestive = inferior. You just cited someone else's interpretation about anima animus and then made your own subejctive interpretation as to how that connects to vulnerable function and inferior.

Someone else who is three times more credible than both of us combined. Not only that, but my major source of evidence from that description was Beren's quotation, which is about 15 times more credible than his. This evidence is a just analysis of the model, and if you don't think so, you should have a little chat with him. [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]

The only evidence it would seem you have for your case is that my evidence is somehow flawed, when your own evidence that you butchered was of even less credible subjective reasoning (whereas mine was reasonable interpretations of evidence gathered on the case of the information). You don't apparently trust the work of people who have actually studied and learned the system, instead preferring your own little relation to things you barely understand, and this, right here, is the absolutely epitome of Te PoLR, and the fact that you don't see it makes me realize how terrible you are at typology systems.

The Burden of Proof is on you. I have provided evidence against your claim, when I should have asked you to begin with to provide evidence for your own claim (that Vulnerable = Inferior), so you can't just selectively shoot it down because you don't think its how you personally relate or you can somehow magically claim that the evidence provided is subjective so you can hold on to your completely illogical stance.

So, Why is the Vulnerable the Inferior, and Why is INxj the INxJ (and it better have reasonable associations, and not just "this description kind of seems like this")?

 

[yeghor]

Someone else who is three times more credible than both of us combined. Not only that, but my major source of evidence from that description was Beren's quotation, which is about 15 times more credible than his. This evidence is a just analysis of the model, and if you don't think so, you should have a little chat with him. [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]

The only evidence it would seem you have for your case is that my evidence is somehow flawed, when your own evidence that you butchered was of even less credible subjective reasoning (whereas mine was reasonable interpretations of evidence gathered on the case of the information). You don't apparently trust the work of people who have actually studied and learned the system, instead preferring your own little relation to things you barely understand, and this, right here, is the absolutely epitome of Te PoLR, and the fact that you don't see it makes me realize how terrible you are at typology systems.

The Burden of Proof is on you. I have provided evidence against your claim, when I should have asked you to begin with to provide evidence for your own claim (that Vulnerable = Inferior), so you can't just selectively shoot it down because you don't think its how you personally relate or you can somehow magically claim that the evidence provided is subjective so you can hold on to your completely illogical stance.

So, Why is the Vulnerable the Inferior, and Why is INxj the INxJ (and it better have reasonable associations, and not just "this description kind of seems like this")?

Why is he 3 times more credible? Why is Beren 15 times more credible?

Beren's quotation?

My proof is in the descriptions yet you disregard them. How else can one make a comparison between the types in the two system, that I don't know. Function order-wise, the models are not compatible. They are compatible description-wise.

So I cannot understand how people assert j-p conversion between the two systems. There must be a common language for conversion between the two systems and if that's not type descriptions, then that must be the functions. To make the functions compatible, one has to assign different order to socionics functions, which is what you did using Beebe's model I guess. You also changed Beebe's function order in the process I guess. To sum it up, you correlated MBTI function order and Beebe archetypes with socionics function order, on assumption that j-p conversion holds true.

By arbitrarily assigning correlation between MBTI function order and socionics function order, one creates a false correlation on assumption that j-p converison holds true. But where's the external evidence that j-p conversion holds true? What's that based on? Where's the evidence for that? And how can it be verified?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Why is he 3 times more credible? Why is Beren 15 times more credible?

Beren's quotation?

My proof is in the descriptions yet you disregard them. How else can one make a comparison between the types in the two system, that I don't know. Function order-wise, the models are not compatible. They are compatible description-wise.

So I cannot understand how people assert j-p conversion between the two systems. There must be a common language for conversion between the two systems and if that's not type descriptions, then that must be the functions. To make the functions compatible, one has to assign different order to socionics functions, which is what you did using Beebe's model I guess. You also changed Beebe's function order in the process I guess. To sum it up, you correlated MBTI function order and Beebe archetypes with socionics function order, on assumption that j-p conversion holds true.

By arbitrarily assigning correlation between MBTI function order and socionics function order, one creates a false correlation on assumption that j-p converison holds true. But where's the external evidence that j-p conversion holds true? What's that based on? Where's the evidence for that? And how can it be verified?

One, because Eric B has studied psychology for a long time, and two because Beren had a doctorate in psychology and studied it intensively.

Your proof being in the descriptions forces you to come to the assumption that personal relation is the best way to find a correlation, when it is not. Instead of linking two systems by how you identify in each one, you must link two systems by how they identify with each other. You don't get to be an infallible piece of evidence where anything you relate to goes, as that can be wrong easily. You do not get to say the Anima is the Vulnerable function because you think you have Se Anima and Se Vulnerable, you have to find the precise mechanics of why the Vulnerable Function is the Anima in both systems independent of how you feel about or relate to it.

If we were to eliminate your subjective bias relations, then we are left with:
Anima: Weak, Valued, Unconscious (influence), Attraction to this information.
Suggestive: Weak, Valued, Unconscious influence, Attraction to this information.
Vulnerable: Weak, Unvalued, Consciously realized, Ignorant and Disregard of this information.

And the comparison is easy, but you insist that the only way to find a correlation is by personal relation into two separate systems, which is wrong.

So, your argument against the j/p switch is that the function order isn't perfect? That the functions are still the same functions just put in different places somehow makes the two systems entirely different?

Lead - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Accepting
Dominant - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Self-oriented (or Accepting)

Creative - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Producing
Auxiliary - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Other-oriented (or Producing)

Role - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged, Accepting
Demon - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged (though described to be in the shadow complexes and thus a manifestation of the Freudian unconscious*), Self-Oriented

Vulnerable - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged, Producing
Trickster - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged*, Other-Oriented

Suggestive - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Accepting
Inferior - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Self-Oriented

Mobilizing - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Producing
Tertiary - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence (though more conscious command than Inferior), Other-Oriented

Ignoring - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Accepting
Antihero - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Self-Oriented

Demonstrative - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Producing
Critical Parent - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Other-Oriented

Look, they even share common properties.

 

[yeghor]

One, because Eric B has studied psychology for a long time, and two because Beren's had a doctorate in psychology and studied it intensively.

Your proof being in the descriptions forces you to come to the assumption that personal relation is the best way to find a correlation, when it is not. Instead of linking two systems by how you identify in each one, you must link two systems by how they identify with each other. You don't get to be an infallible piece of evidence where anything you relate to goes, as that can be wrong easily. You do not get to say the Anima is the Vulnerable function because you think you have Se Anima and Se Vulnerable, you have to find the precise mechanics of why the Vulnerable Function is the Anima in both systems independent of how you feel about or relate to it.

If we were to eliminate your subjective bias relations, then we are left with:
Anima: Weak, Valued, Unconscious (influence), Attraction to this information.
Suggestive: Weak, Valued, Unconscious influence, Attraction to this information.
Vulnerable: Weak, Unvalued, Consciously realized, Ignorant and Disregard of this information.

And the comparison is easy, but you insist that the only way to find a correlation is by personal relation into two separate systems, which is wrong.

So, your argument against the j/p switch is that the function order isn't perfect? That the functions are still the same functions just put in different places somehow makes the two systems entirely different?

Lead - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Accepting
Dominant - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Self-oriented (or Accepting)

Creative - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Producing
Auxiliary - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Other-oriented (or Producing)

Role - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged, Accepting
Demon - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged (though described to be in the shadow complexes and thus a manifestation of the Freudian unconscious*), Self-Oriented

Vulnerable - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged, Producing
Trickster - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged*, Other-Oriented

Suggestive - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Accepting
Inferior - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Self-Oriented

Mobilizing - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Producing
Tertiary - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence (though more conscious command than Inferior), Other-Oriented

Ignoring - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Accepting
Antihero - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Self-Oriented

Demonstrative - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Producing
Critical Parent - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Other-Oriented

Look, they even share common properties.

I don't know where you get the traits for Beebe's model to compare it to socionics model. However, check the table here:

NC Research Triangle Chapter

My understanding is that Lead - Hero, Creative - Good Parent, Role - Child, Vulnerable - Anima, Suggestive - Trickster (this is clearly the trickster, even the names match), Mobilizing - Demon, Ignoring - Antihero, Demonstrative - Critical Parent.

By conscious use I think the model means normal functions and unconscious the shadow functions. So suggestive, Mobilizing, Ignoring and Demonstrative form the shadow self. These are Te, Si, Ne and Fi for INFJ and they make INFJ's shadow ENFP.

And how about the function order for MBTI? Cause you also related socionics functions and Beebe's archetypes to MBTI function order. What did you use to do that? Didn't you use MBTI function order for that?

Here's the thing:

Function 1 – leading, program, primary, base, or dominant function. This is the strongest conscious function, and the most utilized function of the psyche. A person's outlook and role in life is largely determined by the nature of this function. One is generally very confident in the use of this function, and may defend it when challenged. According to Bukalov, this is 4D function (Ex, No, Si, Ti).

Ni

Function 2 – creative or secondary function, is second in influence only to the dominant function. It assists the dominant function in achieving its essence. One is generally less confident with the use of this function than with his dominant function. As a result, the creative function is sometimes less instrumental when a person is challenged or threatened, or when dealing with new and complex tasks and data. According to Bukalov, this function is 3D (Ex, No, Si), or time invariant, because it produces something new which may never exist before.

Fe

Function 3 – role function, is a weak but conscious function. One generally tries to be at least adequate in areas where use of the role function is necessary. Moreover, one generally uses it in situations of social adaptation (e.g. introducing themselves to an unknown person). However, generally one has very little control or confidence over the role function, and criticism is painfully acknowledged with respect to it. Tactful assistance is required from someone else's strong function to overcome the problems associated with the role function. According to Bukalov, this function is 2D (Ex, No), or situation invariant, because it cannot adapt to the unusual situation beyond social norms.

Ti

Function 4 – the vulnerable function, or place of least resistance, is a weak and conscious function, in addition to being the weakest function of the psyche. One painfully perceives his complete inability to use this function, and reacts negatively to its imposition upon him. Tactful assistance is required from someone else's strong function (preferably the Function 8) to overcome the problems associated with this function. According to Bukalov, this function is single dimensional, i.e. only personal experience is collected here, and it cannot be adapted even to the social norms.

Se

Function 5 – suggestive function, is a weak and unconscious function which is largely lacked. One requires assistance from somebody confident in this function in order to overcome the difficulties it presents. When left to ones own devices, the suggestive function goes unnoticed. According to Bukalov, this function is single dimensional, too, and one must be careful not to become subject of manipulation because of misuse of this function. Discussing aspects of this function makes person happy and trustful. (That's why it's called suggestive.)

Te

Function 6 – mobilizing function. This is a weak and unconscious function which one often understands poorly. Nonetheless, this function has a strong influence over one's actions. Individuals requires assistance from someone who uses it confidently in order to understand it. Often an individual is only aware that they are totally unaware of how to use this function. At the same time, it's 2D function, so it's capable of collecting a number of easy receipts for daily needs. Being successful in aspects of this function makes one happy and motivated. (That's why it's called mobilizing.)

Si

Function 7 – observant, or ignoring, or restricting function, the function of personal knowledge. This is a strong (3D according to Bukalov) but unconscious function. One generally has a good grasp of this function, but attempts to limit its use considerably. Individuals will disregard this function when an argument calls for restraint or when it will be difficult to indulge in its essence. At the same time one uses this function to restrict somebody's intervention to their privacy or territory, or other unsolicited interaction.

Ne

Function 8 – demonstrative or background function. This function is so deeply rooted into the psyche that one is usually not consciously aware of its existence or utilization. It is as strong as the leading function (4D according to Bukalov) and it tends to act silently to protect the weakest point of the dual person (see below). It can sound in situations of extreme irritation when the restricting function fails to break the unsolicited influence.

Fi

These are my personal functions for socionics functions. That makes me EII, INFj in socionics. And I am telling you, I am INFJ in MBTI. And the type descriptions in both systems do overlap.

The j-p conversion thing is incorrect.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

[MENTION=20531]yeghor[/MENTION] What the absolute fuck is telling you that the Vulnerable function is the Inferior function? Is it literally the name? Because that is the only thing in common with it.

4. Vulnerable function

The vulnerable function is also called the Point or Place of Least Resistance (PoLR) or sensitive function. The element in this function creates a feeling of frustration and inadequacy. A person does not understand the importance of this element entirely, and it can easily lead to painful consequences if not adequately considered.

However, to directly engage this function creates feelings of insecurity and distress. One reason why the vulnerable function is so difficult to engage is because three other conscious functions come before it, making this one the most difficult to comprehend. Often an alternative approach may be found from the view of the mobilizing function. Because of the psychological disincentives to using the vulnerable function, people usually try to ignore information related to it, and in extreme cases do so even in situations where it is most relevant. Even with a theoretical understanding of how this element works, it is difficult to turn it into practical norms of behavior. One can "develop" the vulnerable function by recognizing that it is actually important in certain real-life circumstances. Even if the subject recognizes this, he will still usually try to avoid taking responsibility for it himself, or develop a minimalist or non-traditional approach (possibly using other functions) that is enough to satisfy one's own needs. The presence of a dual usually dissolves any concern there might be about how to approach matters of the vulnerable function.

Some examples:

A type with PoLR Fe (ILI and SLI) does not see the point of activities revolving around excessive displays of emotion or behavior that does not reach a concrete or tangible outcome. They would rather keep conversations serious and to the point, for he/she is overwhelmed by such emotional expression, making it quite difficult to express themselves. In social interactions they will make a serious effort to reduce their level of emotive expressiveness such as being too joyful or sad, believing that showing these signs will make them vulnerable to be influenced by others. They don't hold quite a high standard for how people as a group feel about something (even if outnumbered by many when making a personal decision), and instead value situations where they can speak their own subjective opinions and feelings freely. (Does this sound like Fucking Fe inferior and valued?)

A type with PoLR Ne (LSI and ESI) has a difficult time understanding ideas that seem new or novel, especially when it has no tangible effect on their lives. Leaving little to chance, they are able to plan out their lives for years ahead of time. This results in difficulties handling unexpected problems in their lives that put a halt on their usual pursuits, and they tend to fear all the possible "what-if's" when those problems prevent them from seeing a clear future. When unsure about something, these types can either avoid making any changes at all or making too quick and reckless of a decision, either of which resulting in missed opportunities. (Does this sound like Ne Inferior/valued?)

A type with PoLR (EIE and LIE) has little patience for sitting back and focusing on how they can physically better themselves in the moment, especially if they are involved in what they view as a very important matter. They would much rather try to act on their long-term priorities instead of their physical comfort, resulting in problems such as an inability to be aware or care about present realities, failure to realize the physical or mental strains they are placing on themselves, and being generally unable to relax and take the focus off of their long-term pursuits. (Does this sound like Si inferior/valued?)

A type with PoLR (SEI and IEI) tends to reject facts given from a source which they are personally unfamiliar with, firmly believing they can make their own decisions that are solely based on their own perspective and reasoning about it. They will tend to become defensive when questioned about their rationale or efficiency, pointing out that there is no such thing as objective "fact". Also, these types experience a significant level of stress in tending to day-to-day must do's and responsibilities in life (like routine maintenance or working productively), manifesting itself as a general laziness or hyper-diligence. (Oh, look, it's you. This doesn't sound like a valued inferior either, I'm afraid)

Why would the inferior, something which is only negative in the smaller sense and positive in the larger view of the self, be branded as something that is the anathema of the type? Why does type theory tell you to get into touch with your less conscious functions, then, if it correlated with a function that is meant to never be understood, trusted, or revered?