User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 125

  1. #21
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by childofprodigy View Post
    I agree.



    I'd correlate Type 8 on both Te and Se. If I were to rank all the 8 functions in terms of assertivity, Te and Se would definitely both be at the top 2. Though I would clearly separate what traits are caused by the JCF vs which traits are caused by enneagram since once again, extraverted thinking is not enneagram type 8 and Te is in its purest form is simply logic derived/applied to the external world and not a set of enneagram traits. I find that socionics in its current form are intermingling enneagram type 8 and extraverted sensation way too much beyond what I consider to be realistic.



    That does not imply that Se is more powerful than other functions. It only implies that Se supplies you with a set of possible actions to take in the present moment unadulterated by the passage of time. Acquiring power takes more than raw Se data. It requires other functions (especially a judging function).



    Yes, though I find some speculations to be more plausible than others.
    I agree that Te and Se together would constitute Type 8 in terms of JCF correlations.

    You are right, it does not imply that Se is more powerful than other functions, as it isn't. It is simply defined in Socionics as being able to see the power of objects in the environment statically. Therefore, Se types are able to quickly determine an efficient, profitable path due to the fact that they see the immediate power and allure of resources and objects at their disposal, meaning that they are able to capitalize on them and utilize every bit of their power. I often find myself comparing the Socionics Pe functions in general to the entrepreneur for this reason.

    Indeed, some speculations are more plausible than others.

  2. #22
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    OK, I just found your stance interesting as mine's the exact opposite :P I see MBTI functions as described independently of position and socionics functions as dependent on position. Maybe we were reading very different sources or something :p
    This is actually pretty interesting, as I hold the same stance! But I think we came to the same conclusions in an opposite way? That's what I'm trying to say, is that the MBTI ones are independent of their position and socionics are moreso dependent on it. But usually it's up to the person to figure it out in socionics unfortunately. Which I think is why there is so much confusion.

    I was thinking more of how when you read about the functions, that they are described in a particular way. But what you just said is how it is, that MBTI ones are more described independently of position, like when you look up most, say, Ti descriptions you will only find a single definition, and most of these are kinda build into the general profiles without much explanation unless you're going through Lenore. And socionics ones are really dependent on position, but usually the "position" descriptions are really poor or have to do with, of all things, soviet Russia. And yet it's critical to apply the socionics functions to a position, which adds another layer of complexity, not only do you need to understand the functions but you must understand what the positions mean too to be able to have a real definition. So it gets a bit more confusing in that way, and if you look at socionics through the MBTI lens then things get confusing I think and that is where people go in circles with this stuff when trying to figure it out.

    (Sorry for any confusion there... Dat PoLR Ti?)
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  3. #23
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Why do you think this is better than the MBTI Se definition?

    I relate to Se as defined in socionics more than in MBTI but I attribute that to having high scores both on Se and Te in MBTI. (About equally high.) And yeah, my enneagram type..
    I never said that it was better than the MBTI Se definition, you obviously missed my discussion earlier with Jaguar and Jixmixfix in the Beta quadra thread where I discussed how Socionics and JCF touch on each others blind spots due to the fact that they are in different perspectives.

    You are arguing against a person who believes that Socionics and JCF's function descriptions can come together to elucidate both the external properties (Socionics) and the internal properties (JCF) of functions, and, more specifically, how functions appear to others (Socionics) and how functions appear to the individual (JCF).

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    This is actually pretty interesting, as I hold the same stance! But I think we came to the same conclusions in an opposite way? That's what I'm trying to say, is that the MBTI ones are independent of their position and socionics are moreso dependent on it. But usually it's up to the person to figure it out in socionics unfortunately. Which I think is why there is so much confusion.

    I was thinking more of how when you read about the functions, that they are described in a particular way. But what you just said is how it is, that MBTI ones are more described independently of position, like when you look up most, say, Ti descriptions you will only find a single definition, and most of these are kinda build into the general profiles without much explanation unless you're going through Lenore. And socionics ones are really dependent on position, but usually the "position" descriptions are really poor or have to do with, of all things, soviet Russia. And yet it's critical to apply the socionics functions to a position, which adds another layer of complexity, not only do you need to understand the functions but you must understand what the positions mean too to be able to have a real definition. So it gets a bit more confusing in that way, and if you look at socionics through the MBTI lens then things get confusing I think and that is where people go in circles with this stuff when trying to figure it out.

    (Sorry for any confusion there... Dat PoLR Ti?)
    Alright. I think you just made a typo in your original post then. Yes I agree with all this here. I'd only add that these position dependent functions are also described through showing how other functions etc stuff in the same type work (at least at wikisocion), e.g. when describing Se suggestive, it puts in stuff about irrationality (irrational lead function), hints on devalued Ne and so on. So yes it's all very complex that way. I don't mind


    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    I never said that it was better than the MBTI Se definition, you obviously missed my discussion earlier with Jaguar and Jixmixfix in the Beta quadra thread where I discussed how Socionics and JCF touch on each others blind spots due to the fact that they are in different perspectives.

    You are arguing against a person who believes that Socionics and JCF's function descriptions can come together to elucidate both the external properties (Socionics) and the internal properties (JCF) of functions, and, more specifically, how functions appear to others (Socionics) and how functions appear to the individual (JCF).
    OK I get that you're into the idea that there's 8 pure functions. I wasn't sure if you saw some definitions as better than some other definitions. I don't see MBTI and socionics being unified together. If you ever make some write up on how this is achieved specifically while dealing with all the discrepancies too (that aren't resolved by just assuming internal and external properties), let me know

  5. #25
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    Or it's just that socionics has different concepts that aren't necessarily worse than the concepts in other typology systems.
    I'm aware of the existence of this school of thought, and I don't subscribe to it. See my very first post on this thread.

    What kind of power (to be acquired) are we talking about here?
    Any form of power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est
    Therefore, Se types are able to quickly determine an efficient, profitable path due to the fact that they see the immediate power and allure of resources and objects at their disposal, meaning that they are able to capitalize on them and utilize every bit of their power
    Efficient, profitable path sounds like Te to me (or possibly Ti) not Se. All Se does is notify the user that the object/resource exists in his disposal. In order to actually capitalize on them, he needs a judging function (a thinking function especially)

  6. #26
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by childofprodigy View Post
    I'm aware of the existence of this school of thought, and I don't subscribe to it. See my very first post on this thread.



    Any form of power.



    Efficient, profitable path sounds like Te to me (or possibly Ti) not Se. All Se does is notify the user that the object/resource exists in his disposal. In order to actually capitalize on them, he needs a judging function (a thinking function especially)
    It does sound like Te, until you realize that Te is the dynamic counterpart to Se, and that Te doesn't see the momentary power in objects but the power in objects in relation to the past and future.

    Extroverted logic deals with the external activity of objects, i.e the how, what and where of events, activity or work, behaviour, algorithms, movement, and actions. The how, what and where of events would be the external activity of events, activity or work would be the external activity of a machine or individual(s) and algorithms describe the external activity of objects.
    -Wikisocion
    Se includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required. Types that value Se are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact.... They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world". Unlike Si, which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), Se is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.
    You have to consider that the realization of the efficient path is not achieved through logical means such as Te provides, but through halfway built perceptions of events. Se doesn't see the logically sound, mechanically efficient choice, it sees the most immediate choice that is quick, and they then assess that choice with their introverted judging function to see if that option makes logical sense (specifically with Ti) according to principles built up overtime through the use of the Ji function.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    I think the discussion from the other thread belongs here more. I was replying to this post;


    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    I've got a running count of 4 separate ISTPs, the only ones I know that have actually looked into the system (you are one of them, jixmixfix, and badger was one as well (sadly), and someone I know from real life).
    Wow 4 is some number. Interesting. What's your theory on it? hahahah.. but really I'm curious. So let me know when you've managed to put it into words.


    It's easily explainable even without the problems of the Soviet era with Si, though we use the Soviet Era to explain the bullshit descriptions of Si types being "lazy" or "familiar-oriented". Through JCF, we see that Si is more than what Socionics simply portrays it to be (which evidently is the aforementioned bullshit). Si is the ability to see the power and potential in ones self, ones' own physical and mental limitations, and judge realistic outcomes based on their own assessment of their own intrinsic worth, power, mental and physical attitude, etc. Therefore, the Si type is self-accepting to a point, that point ending when the Si user believes that they are actually capable of anything, such as being perfect as seen with many hard-working SLIs/ISTJs/ISTps. JCF shows us the other features of Si that others don't see (which the aspect that is seen being the "self-acceptance"/"attention to self") such as the nostalgic longing for the way things were, the associative memory through which everything in the present is compared against (something so simple as "I remember a pizza that tasted just like this back when I was younger"). It provides a sense of knowing what one wants out of life, one's direct preferences for things, directly and consciously. There are even several more blades in the swiss army knife that is Si that I cannot even fathom due to the fact that it is my Demonic Personality Complex (8th function, most suppressed).
    Swiss army knife that's held together by nothing actually. I'm sorry if I sound cynical but the analogy is actually useful to show what way I'm thinking about this. How are all these different features of Si held together, how are they more than just loose correlations at best, and then sometimes maybe even negative correlations?

    OK, so, the bolded stuff, it could actually be said out loud and then others see it too. I don't see this as a good example of something that's the "internal perspective". On the other hand, "familiar-oriented" could also be an "internal perspective", but you listed it as external.

    Note btw how your Si definition here differs from Jung's original Si?

    I'm reading a book now (some fiction) and I keep thinking to myself, wow it's full of MBTI Si, when it's describing how the heroine thinks. She does think to herself a lot about stuff like your pizza example. At the same time this same person seems to be some Se type in socionics as she clearly deals with socionics Si aspects like Se ego types do. Strong in it but devalued. She doesn't care to assess internal limitations, she powers through external ones. She's got weak intuition in both systems though.

    This is just fiction but it illustrates pretty well how it's possible to have the two together, MBTI Si and socionics Se. (I think she's Se-creative.)

    My point here is, these aspects of Si definitions cannot be expected to always go together. That's just part of the deal of course, as sometimes they are mutually exclusive too. E.g., staying with Si, in MBTI Si-dom types don't want novelty because their Si is all about the already known shit. In socionics, Si-lead types seek it as Ne is their suggestive function. And not only that, but in socionics Si-lead types are irrational, flexible, unlike the SJs in MBTI. The SJs in MBTI are working off a map of known sensory data so they aren't flexible. MBTI Si is much more static than the dynamic socionics Si.

    As a sum up, I would say that MBTI Si is a way of thinking, while socionics Si is ...something else. It's a way of adaptation to environment, maybe. It's basically a more directly physical "mindset" than the MBTI Si mindset which involves a more abstract form of sensory data processing. And no this doesn't mean they're describing the same thing from different perspectives. I don't see any proof that one follows from the other and vice versa. And, the socionics Si is still easily seen as an internal perspective, you don't have to view it as a purely external observation.


    I'll have to read up more on the Suggestive function, I don't have much data concerning it, but I will get back to you when I have formulated an argument for it and have researched it more thoroughly.
    Okay

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    You have to consider that the realization of the efficient path is not achieved through logical means such as Te provides, but through halfway built perceptions of events. Se doesn't see the logically sound, mechanically efficient choice, it sees the most immediate choice that is quick, and they then assess that choice with their introverted judging function to see if that option makes logical sense (specifically with Ti) according to principles built up overtime through the use of the Ji function.
    That actually is a pretty nice description. That's exactly how I work when I don't yet have a framework to handle something.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    I think the discussion from the other thread belongs here more. I was replying to this post;




    Wow 4 is some number. Interesting. What's your theory on it? hahahah.. but really I'm curious. So let me know when you've managed to put it into words.




    Swiss army knife that's held together by nothing actually. I'm sorry if I sound cynical but the analogy is actually useful to show what way I'm thinking about this. How are all these different features of Si held together, how are they more than just loose correlations at best, and then sometimes maybe even negative correlations?

    OK, so, the bolded stuff, it could actually be said out loud and then others see it too. I don't see this as a good example of something that's the "internal perspective". On the other hand, "familiar-oriented" could also be an "internal perspective", but you listed it as external.

    Note btw how your Si definition here differs from Jung's original Si?

    I'm reading a book now (some fiction) and I keep thinking to myself, wow it's full of MBTI Si, when it's describing how the heroine thinks. She does think to herself a lot about stuff like your pizza example. At the same time this same person seems to be some Se type in socionics as she clearly deals with socionics Si aspects like Se ego types do. Strong in it but devalued. She doesn't care to assess internal limitations, she powers through external ones. She's got weak intuition in both systems though.

    This is just fiction but it illustrates pretty well how it's possible to have the two together, MBTI Si and socionics Se. (I think she's Se-creative.)

    My point here is, these aspects of Si definitions cannot be expected to always go together. That's just part of the deal of course, as sometimes they are mutually exclusive too. E.g., staying with Si, in MBTI Si-dom types don't want novelty because their Si is all about the already known shit. In socionics, Si-lead types seek it as Ne is their suggestive function. And not only that, but in socionics Si-lead types are irrational, flexible, unlike the SJs in MBTI. The SJs in MBTI are working off a map of known sensory data so they aren't flexible. MBTI Si is much more static than the dynamic socionics Si.

    As a sum up, I would say that MBTI Si is a way of thinking, while socionics Si is ...something else. It's a way of adaptation to environment, maybe. It's basically a more directly physical "mindset" than the MBTI Si mindset which involves a more abstract form of sensory data processing. And no this doesn't mean they're describing the same thing from different perspectives. I don't see any proof that one follows from the other and vice versa. And, the socionics Si is still easily seen as an internal perspective, you don't have to view it as a purely external observation.




    Okay
    You realize that the comment about a link between ISTPs and distrusting Socionics was a joke right (I had thought you got that)? (though the figures were accurate)

    So you only believe that a function has one particular use only? That Ni for instance, only predicts rather than doing that alongside hyper-analyzing events in the past, creating personal integration with conceptual ideas and theories, elucidating incredible amounts of information from scarce data, etc.?

    Also, fictional characters are not people and therefore break the functional tidings in the first place due to the fact that authors use various techniques like vivid imagery, character quirks that are not based out of personality but out of necessity, and nostalgic memories and flashbacks.

    Furthermore, it would seem that you have completely rejected the idea that the two systems do not, in fact, occupy and define the same functions exactly, but instead occupy different perspectives, as if this idea is foreign to you, that the two systems must be defining precisely both the external and internal view of the functions at the same time, when that is evidently not the case. You still clutch to the idea that Socionics and JCF must be seperate due to the fact that the functions are defined differently when in fact they are defined from different perspectives (reinforcing my belief that you simply took my oversimplification of the perspectives instead of actually reading the argument made in the Beta quadrant thread, which I recommend that you read, though you have probably already made up your mind and will refute it anyways through some measure, thus making it entirely futile to continue further (another one of Ji's magnificent qualities)). The Socionics Si is, on the contrary, viewed externally, how the Si user presents Si to others (refined by the creative function, of course), so yes, it is actually the external perspective.

    I can see how @Zarathustra got pissed off at you now. This debate is practically futile and was unnecessary in the first place.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by infinity- View Post
    That actually is a pretty nice description. That's exactly how I work when I don't yet have a framework to handle something.
    It also happens to be a description where JCF Se and Socionics Se collide, though I doubt you'll believe it.

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI vs socionics j/p
    By Poki in forum Socionics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-10-2014, 06:33 PM
  2. MBTI vs Socionics
    By Amargith in forum Socionics
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-27-2013, 07:57 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