User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 125

  1. #41
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default


  2. #42
    failed poetry slam career chubber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    pretty much what I thought too.

  3. #43
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Thank you.

    Therefore, it is not difficult to see that the ISFP/ISFj/ESI, who isn't an irrational Se dominant, as a type 9 would theoretically possess the "conquest" element of Se but not know where to purpose it due to the lack of identity/purpose characteristic of 9s, meaning that they would seem less like the over-dramatized "conquesting" nature of Se portrayed in Socionics and more oriented toward dominant-tertiary mechanics (possibly leading to a higher chance for being engaged in an Fi-Ni loop).
    Quote Originally Posted by senza tema View Post
    I would say all of this is incredibly true for me.
    Wow.

    Yes.

    This is exactly the kind of thinking necessary to properly comprehend this Socionics-MBTI issue.

    It also would help explain why, amongst other reasons, senza would seem to have significantly better Ni usage than most SPs.

    Also, @Alea_iacta_est: I have seen the same issue you mention about ISTPs demanding they be separate systems.

    An interesting question, then, is why @Azure Flame (as a presumed SLE/ESTp/ESTP) does not.

    An INTJ who stopped by here once referred to Bayesian vs Frequentist thinking.

    IIRC, he compared Bayesian to INTJ and Frequentist to INTP thinking.

    IIRC, Bayesian wants to run one model that most accurately describes reality.

    Frequentist, on the other hand, wants to run multiple parallel models.

    It was a while ago, so that could be a little bit off (and names switched).

    Anyway, not that this explains everything, but there could be overlap between INTP and ISTP thinking, in this regard.

    I would think the ISTPs' Se might change that equation, but it seems their Se actually worsens their issue in this Socionics-MBTI matter.

    It seems they look at things so statically, they read the descriptions and only see qualitative differences on the surface, and thus determine "these two things are different".

    Better development of Ni would cause them to look for the deeper truth, the real function both descriptions are trying to point to.

    Each system's description would only be its view point of the same object, much like @Ginkgo's image above.

    Ni beckons us to find the synthesis between them (among all of the various descriptions, really).

    It's what we do: we metaperspectivize.

    From Ni's metaperspectivizing vantage point, each description looks like just one party's perspective on the same thing.

    It's probably part of the reason why INTJs are the most likely of the introverts to (correctly) identify as ILI/INTp/INTJ.

    And also part of the reason why Ni-suppressing ISTPs reject the notion that the two systems are compatible.

  4. #44
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Wow.

    Yes.

    This is exactly the kind of thinking necessary to properly comprehend this Socionics-MBTI issue.

    It also would help explain why, amongst other reasons, senza would seem to have significantly better Ni usage than most SPs.

    Also, @Alea_iacta_est: I have seen the same issue you mention about ISTPs demanding they be separate systems.

    An interesting question, then, is why @Azure Flame (as a presumed SLE/ESTp/ESTP) does not.

    An INTJ who stopped by here once referred to Bayesian vs Frequentist thinking.

    IIRC, he compared Bayesian to INTJ and Frequentist to INTP thinking.

    IIRC, Bayesian wants to run one model that most accurately describes reality.

    Frequentist, on the other hand, wants to run multiple parallel models.

    It was a while ago, so that could be a little bit off (and names switched).

    Anyway, not that this explains everything, but there could be overlap between INTP and ISTP thinking, in this regard.

    I would think the ISTPs' Se might change that equation, but it seems their Se actually worsens their issue in this Socionics-MBTI matter.

    It seems they look at things so statically, they read the descriptions and only see qualitative differences on the surface, and thus determine "these two things are different".

    Better development of Ni would cause them to look for the deeper truth, the real function both descriptions are trying to point to.

    Each system's description would only be its view point of the same object, much like @Ginkgo's image above.

    Ni beckons us to find the synthesis between them (among all of the various descriptions, really).

    It's what we do: we metaperspectivize.

    From Ni's metaperspectivizing vantage point, each description looks like just one party's perspective on the same thing.

    It's probably part of the reason why INTJs are the most likely of the introverts to (correctly) identify as ILI/INTp/INTJ.

    And also part of the reason why Ni-suppressing ISTPs reject the notion that the two systems are compatible.
    Which one do you relate to more?

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ale_and_female

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ale_and_female
    @senza tema

    Which one do you relate to more?

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ale_and_female

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ale_and_female

    I don't know if there's any difference in function descriptions... But if any, they may be stemming from the fact that we can use both sides of the function interchangeably alas weakly... i.e. a Ni-dom can still use Ne and vice versa... so any discrepancy may perhaps be due to that...

  5. #45
    Just a note... LittleV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    276

    Default

    From a researching perspective...

    Each scale for the Big Five's traits by different authors do not measure the same dimensions... it would be further unlikely that two systems would have 100% shared variance. We haven't even demonstrated that the functions exist yet... so trusting that every system created for its purpose is automatically valid (and 100% transfer over... even when one trait, as well as every dimension every studied, does not even have that level of consistency between scales) is not conclusive. I believe the functions are the same, but the systems are not perfect; @Ginkgo's visual is accurately idealistic... and although I believe that would be very true in an intuitive sense, if we were 'perfect' enough to create systems with a Cronbach's alpha of 100%, etc. The MBTI and Socionics is one Venn-Diagram within a circle (Jung)... if properly substantiated in this case. There are many other circles within circles, and different interpretations as one shifts to the side and notices that everything's multidimensional. That's when sophisticated math and science can come in (which psychology is already beginning to implement). If Jung's cognitive functions would be sufficiently held up through research... you'd begin to see even more typologies being created in competition for being the most valid/reliable one (or be a separate system from traits, although be often linked in further research). (Cognitive functions with trait dichotomies won't happen if not partitioned at first because not doing so would take away from the multidimensionality that each unit has on it's own (building blocks)... and priorly dictate where everything might lead; think of how in chemistry, biology and physics... you'd need to get to the smallest units first before accurately witnessing/explaining how entities could interact through research. Often, a 'leap of faith'... accurate or not... would need to be made during discussions [which has also occurred here with the functions].) However, all of the systems which may be (somewhat) successfully supported would then be maintained until perhaps more information would tip the scale of which would be closer to being 'the best'. And then, of course, there would always be those who'd like to do this peacefully, with cooperation. Depends on the person/system.

  6. #46
    011235813
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    @senza tema

    Which one do you relate to more?

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ale_and_female

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ale_and_female

    I don't know if there's any difference in function descriptions... But if any, they may be stemming from the fact that we can use both sides of the function interchangeably alas weakly... i.e. a Ni-dom can still use Ne and vice versa... so any discrepancy may perhaps be due to that...
    ESI, for sure. Not in the neat freak, "literally sterile" way or the behaviors so much, but in the emotional reactions and motivations, yes, a lot of it resonates with me.

  7. #47
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    I think there's a lot of dumb stereotypes in those descriptions, especially as pertains to how the types supposedly look (but also more character-based issues as well), but, with that being said, I'm clearly ILI.

    There are certain parts that resonate in the ILI profile in important ways, as they get to the core of an NiTe individual, and are not just folk typology in the USSR bullshit.

    Meanwhile, there are certain parts about the LII profile that are certainly not true of me, nor of most INTJs, but that do tend to be extremely true of INTPs (lack of possessiveness wrt mate, and about three other things).

    What resonates most with the ILI profile:

    "Representatives of this type have a special relation to the course of time. They see it as the actually existing substance and know how to work with it. Their consciousness is capable of gliding along the time axis forward in the future and backward into the past. They live in this flow of time and don't understand why others do not make use of their potential."

    I have read these profiles before, and already identify as ILI/INTp/INTJ/NiTe.

  8. #48
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Then something's must be off cause I relate more to

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ale_and_female

    It gives Dostoevski as an example...

  9. #49
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Then something's must be off cause I relate more to

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ale_and_female

    It gives Dostoevski as an example...
    Read more profiles (including ones with specific sections for the functions, as well as subtypes).

    I've probably read 6-7 different Socionics ones.

    When I first looked into it, I just figured I was an INTj, and the description was close enough (INTP vs INTJ is not an uncommon mistype [and same goes for INFJ vs INFP]).

    What you must learn to unravel is everything I have been pointing to: different methodologies for J/j and P/p notation, and how this difference actually represents a different philosophy when it comes to "Jish" (orderly, etc) and "Pish" (lazy, unstructured, etc) qualities, and how this different philosophy then informs the profile descriptions, making Ijs/IPs sound more "Jish" in Socionics and Ips/IJs sound more "Pish" in Socionics. It's actually completely understandable for introverts to identify with the wrong type in Socionics, because of this issue. If one understands, tho, why it is the case, why the profiles read like this, then one can see behind the surface level differences, and start seeing the types for what they really are, which is more of a blend of the Socionics and the MBTI descriptions (as both J/j-P/p methodologies and philosophies actually have some merit [which has more is up for debate, tho, and it may differ depending on individual, types involved, and certain elements of the individual's Big 5 results {particularly Conscientiousness (which is most correlated to J/j-P/p)}]). What should NOT change, tho, are what functions the person uses. That makes no sense whatsoever ("oh, yes, I use NiFe in this system, but FiNe in this one"), and could only be supported by an imbecile.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Fun in the Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Enneagram
    4
    Socionics
    ESI Fi
    Posts
    260

    Default

    I pretty much think that the two systems are the same even though I can't say why that is. I can see two side of me, one being a laid back MBTI ISFP, just wanting to do my own thing, while inside I feel that I can be really, really rigid, stubborn, and judgmental and can identify with ESI in Socionics. It seems to me that the ESI is an ISFP that has their shit together. Likewise, it seems that the MBTI ISFJ has their shit together, while the socionics SEI does not. This is where I see a lot of overlap between personalities. Having Sensing and Feeling as the first two functions creates people that are more similar than not. It makes it really tough to tell the difference sometimes, like trying to tell the difference between slightly different tints of the same color. I relate to the FiSe combo more than any other, but the more I've read about it, the more it seems there are dozens of ways that combination can present itself. What I like about socionics ESI is that they don't write FiSe types off as dim witted and they are capable of doing well in school(as long as pressure is exerted on them)*raises hand*

    Let me try to explain another way. When I was younger, I was very much into exploring the world with my senses and creating art. I was very interested in trying to understand the world as it was. I had an imagination, but it was still grounded in reality, if that makes sense. As a teenager, I was very emo and depressed, but kept much of it to myself, putting it into my art or by venting it out through activities. As I've gotten older and my values have become fine tuned, I've become much like the socionics FiSe.

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