• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

MBTI vs socionics functions

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Interesting. I've actually heard several theories about the tertiary actually being entirely ambiverted, with types like the ENTP being Ne - Ti - F - Si (feeling in general). I think the actual reason it is kept this way is due to the fact that everyone supposedly must have a definite Pi, Pe, Je, and Ji function in their first four functions, which might not entirely be the case, but is generally considered to be true in the common realm of JCF. Though I still think that the perspective shift you describe from internal to external values or vice versa might actually be the decision to abandon the creative function (sorry for transition to Socionics, but it reiterates my initial argument) in favor of the demonstrative function. Of course, this is all speculation without any empirical evidence.

Speaking of ENTP, why did you decide to go INTJ from ENTP? (I was in your type thread and brought up your high Conscientiousness score on Big 5 being inconsistent with ENTP.)
Edit: I forgot to tell you - in many of the books published by CPP, they leave the tertiary attitude neutral. ENTP is indeed listed as Ne-Ti-F-Si.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Interesting. I've actually heard several theories about the tertiary actually being entirely ambiverted, with types like the ENTP being Ne - Ti - F - Si (feeling in general). I think the actual reason it is kept this way is due to the fact that everyone supposedly must have a definite Pi, Pe, Je, and Ji function in their first four functions, which might not entirely be the case, but is generally considered to be true in the common realm of JCF. Though I still think that the perspective shift you describe from internal to external values or vice versa might actually be the decision to abandon the creative function (sorry for transition to Socionics, but it reiterates my initial argument) in favor of the demonstrative function. Of course, this is all speculation without any empirical evidence.

A toggle of the tertiary can exist to some extent - I do it myself a bit, as needed - but people predominantly work according to the dominant model.

INTJs fake Fe.

You don't see many AT ALL who genuinely prefer it over, and use it nearly as much as, Fi.

(And, while not necessarily an argument that this MUST be a sign of unhealth, an INTJ lacking Introverted Feeling... yeah, good chance there's been some problem that has caused this, and he'd probably be psychologically better off [more balanced] if he were to develop a proper Ji function [and Fi > Ti, so as to offer balance to auxiliary T{e}]).
 

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
In socionics the fake Fe of the INTp is the conscience effort of Fe or blind spot/PoLR as some call it.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Speaking of ENTP, why did you decide to go INTJ from ENTP? (I was in your type thread and brought up your high Conscientiousness score on Big 5 being inconsistent with ENTP.)
Edit: I forgot to tell you - in many of the books published by CPP, they leave the tertiary attitude neutral. ENTP is indeed listed as Ne-Ti-F-Si.

The reason behind it was actually the fact that I actually align more with introverted intuition than extroverted intuition due to the fact that my thinking style differs from the Ne perspective, which is expansive and attempting to account for every possibility, since I have a convergent (zeroing-in), probability-based (juxtaposing the possibility based thinking style of Ne) thinking style that forms idiosyncratic, personalized understandings for theories, ideas, and any form of conceptual information. I also, as many people have pointed out to me over my time here, favor Te much more than Ti, along with some more information regarding the tertiary Fi (or F, if we are to claim ambiversion) and inferior Se.
 

infinite

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
565
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
~8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I was being entirely fair, I was stating my direct opinion of the situation and not drawing a huge deal out of it but simply clarifying what you and [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] were trying to wail on each other with.

That's fine, I wasn't calling your trying to clarify your opinion unfair.


Also, you did cling to Ti at the end of the debate, as you began to define Si according to your own perspective, I'm not saying that to discredit you, I'm saying that because it happened. Also, I didn't attack your character whatsoever, I analyzed your thinking.

I didn't ever attempt to define Si according to my own perspective. Please point to where you think I was doing that. It's some misunderstanding clearly. I seriously dislike the idea of attempting to define Si outside the official theories. No, I don't even attempt it, actually. So I'm honestly very curious what I said that you interpreted this way.


Also, the deep analysis was a product of me trying to figure out your thinking in your argument and your own perspective rather than simply reading your information in my own perspective, as that would be unfair on your part for I would not have the reference frame.

That's a nice kind of intention from your part, but to get the reference frame, you'd be much better off by asking me about your interpretations first to see if you got it right.


Also, the "you can't just make conclusions about ways of thinking without further data" is (and I'm doing this just for the ironic amusement) you clinging to Se (focus on specific data and the amalgamation of data to ensure that the conclusion is perfectly accounted for with evidence) and bashing Ni, which does, in fact, make conclusions with little data and often turns about to be correct, as I have done with this.

It's alright call it Se if you want, I will agree that I do this a lot.

I don't really bash Ni per se, Ni is pretty cool, I bash the tendency of neglecting to verify conclusions. (That tendency may not be type dependent much.) Just because one's a Ni-dom it doesn't mean they shouldn't attempt to verify their insights. It's good for both the Ni-dom and for everyone else, IMO.


I would prefer that this or the next statement be the concessions to this debate, as I do not want to get in the slap-fest (though while incredibly fun to watch) with you and [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION].

Heh I don't see you and me getting in a slap-fest, your attitude is very different from Zarathustra's. I don't have a problem with you in fact. I'm just disagreeing on a few things, which is not meant in any personal way.
 

infinite

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
565
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
~8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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; [MENTION=8031]Ginkgo[/MENTION]'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.

+1 to most of this ;) Really well put.

(We don't agree that there's exactly 8 functions but the rest we totally do agree about.)

What is your opinion about what the non-trait based version of functions is?
 

infinite

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
565
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
~8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I was wondering earlier if results from tests like keys2cognition would be able to accurately identify someone's type based on their top scoring function (assuming lead) and their second scoring function (assuming either aux/creative or senex/demonstrative). Therefore, [MENTION=15371]RaptorWizard[/MENTION], for instance, who was confused about whether or not he was an ISTP due to his apparent TiNi dom. tert. mechanism would in fact be an INTP/INTj/TiNe, who uses demonstrative Ni often in private (according to Model A) and thus can have a chance to develop it more than say the ignoring function, which is completely shunned usually.

Your first datapoint is here; I *consistently* score *equally high* in these three in keys2cog etc function tests: Se, Te, Ti. None of them is actually leading in scores though... just about equal.

Mostly consistent with SLE in socionics, less consistent with LSI, though then there is the Si conundrum of course, see below.

In MBTI I don't know what it's closest to, ISTP or ESTP. Could say ISTP as it's two T functions, but that wouldn't go well with Model-A if you tried to transfer it to that :p

What are your highest MBTI functions as measured in tests?

Your idea is actually not bad btw :)

The only problem is when we would be bringing socionics into it because obviously MBTI function tests such as the keys2cog test measure somewhat different things from socionics functions, which is most easily seen in the case of Si.

This one isn't up for debate as it's a fact that the MBTI function tests ask very different questions it than the socionics tests.

The questions for other functions are also somewhat different but I would say Si has the most apparent differences.
 

infinite

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
565
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
~8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Also, [MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION]: I have seen the same issue you mention about ISTPs demanding they be separate systems.

An interesting question, then, is why [MENTION=10984]Azure Flame[/MENTION] (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 [MENTION=8031]Ginkgo[/MENTION]'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.

A datapoint for this theory for anyone who'd like to dig deeper to check it out;

I prefer one model for reality, having parallel models is just not as good as one accurate model. With the case of MBTI and socionics, I like to view the entire matter from another model (which is closer to official science of general psychology). That framework is really my framework and not MBTI, nor socionics. Before that framework, it was an attempt at unifying MBTI and socionics which I ultimately saw as less fruitful. So overall I very much relate to the Bayesian view here.

Oh and it's got nothing to do with just reading the surface, nope. Using typology terminology, any introverted function is capable of going deeper, not just Ni. When I imagine the functions as defined, it's a lot more complex than just there being 8 functions.


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.

So basically you're willing to ditch the consistency of the J/P dichotomy in favour of keeping the functions the same. It could be done the other way around too, keeping dichotomies and doing away with functions.

(My stance has not changed; I'm still not interested in the trolling, so only reply if you're going to stay on topic with this. I can't be bothered otherwise.)


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

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=EII_male_and_female

It gives Dostoevski as an example...

I still think you should examine your reasons for going for EII over IEI :) Though I'm not saying you can't be closer to EII. :shrug:
 

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
If the systems used very different names for functions, would that help in seeing where the differences are?

Can you show us the exact differences that you are seeing? Make a table or something, lets see what you see.
 

infinite

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
565
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
~8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
SLE. What about you?




That test actually uses reinin dichotomies and whatnot too but yes it works alright for me. Why are you asking?

If you used it, what is your subtype?

Mine is INTp-Te
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
I still think you should examine your reasons for going for EII over IEI :) Though I'm not saying you can't be closer to EII. :shrug:

I already examined them...? :) Or do you rather want me to demonstrate them?
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Also, you did cling to Ti at the end of the debate, as you began to define Si according to your own perspective, I'm not saying that to discredit you, I'm saying that because it happened. Also, I didn't attack your character whatsoever, I analyzed your thinking.

Also, the "you can't just make conclusions about ways of thinking without further data" is (and I'm doing this just for the ironic amusement) you clinging to Se (focus on specific data and the amalgamation of data to ensure that the conclusion is perfectly accounted for with evidence) and bashing Ni, which does, in fact, make conclusions with little data and often turns about to be correct, as I have done with this.

I'm sure SolitaryWalker and many other INTPs will be thrilled to know they use Se simply because they demand evidence as critical thinkers. /sarcasm

If you have to resort to going after who you're responding to by bringing up their type or function-attitudes, you show a weakness in your argument. One of my oldest pals in the forum is an INTJ. I assure you, he never lifted up his middle finger at evidence, and he and I were of the same opinion that making lame generalizations is a sign of sloppy thinking. People don't get a free pass based on type: "Ni, which does, in fact, make conclusions with little data and often turns about to be correct." First of all, you can't prove any such claim or do you personally know 51% of the world's Ni Dom population? (That question was rhetorical.) Not only do you not know 51%, you can't even prove a person is Ni dom. You included. The MBTI is a self-reporting instrument which makes it unreliable and pointing a finger and shouting "See, that's Ni!" at a person's post won't cut the mustard, either.

If you want to make a claim, back it up with evidence.

And if you think only one MBTI type would say that, there are thousands of posts in this forum that will show you otherwise. Use the advanced search function in this forum and start reading.

That said, your claim that someone is "clinging" to Ti and defining "clinging" as "beginning to define Si according to your own perspective" means a hell of a lot of people use Ti, (including me) and many authors of type books. The definitions vary from source to source, test question to test question, person to person, and so on. Again, there are thousands of posts in this forum with people putting their own spin on things, according to their own perspective and it's not about Ti.

On page 22 of An Introduction To The Personailty Type Code written by Dario Nardi (INTJ) and Linda Berens (INTP) an excerpt from the Ti section of the ISTP profile reads:

They are skilled at stepping back, staying objective, and not over-reacting.

So, who shall we call bullshit on now? Berens, Nardi, ISTPs, INTPs, INTJs, you, me, who? Are you getting the picture yet? Many people complain that Ti is too subjective, but the function-attitudes do not operate in a vacuum. Ti-Se and Ti-Ne will not operate the same way. It doesn't matter if it's Socionics, the MBTI, Jung, Freud, or even the Enneagram. There are different definitions and descriptions from source to source and one better be flexible if they want to discuss type models. Many people have changed their minds about their own type upon reading different publications for the very reasons I have mentioned.

What I actually find amusing is that what you claim is Se, was what an ENTP member claimed was Te for many years. He called it "shit Te."

As for Socionics and the MBTI, the reason I brought up the tertiary function elsewhere in this thread was not just for the hell of it. Socionics is not flexible in its structure; it does not account for tertiary function-attitude flexibility. It's set up in blocks. One would have to bust open the framework and change the fundamental structure to accommodate that level of flexibility.

Btw, without mentioning names, there are two people who claim to be MBTI INTJs in this forum.
Of the two MBTI INTJs, using Socionics , one claims to be LII, the other claims to be ILI.

The discrepancies in how some INTJs type themselves using Socionics is nothing new. Some INTJs have even typed themselves as Ti-Se using Socionics. And that is their choice.
There is no correct answer using self-reporting instruments, it's up to the person to decide what fits them best. You'd think that would be obvious, but after all these years, some still seem to think they have a right to make decisions for other people regarding their type whether it's the MBTI, Socionics, or even the Enneagram.
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
I think Se is rather interested in manipulating the present\immediate environment whereas Te is more interested in how present or potential resources in the general environment can be organized in a systemmatic manner...

So Se is like a beast... Te is like a machine...

Edit:

Ti-Se may be checking if the internal system of understanding fits and holds water in the physical environment... whereas Ti-Ne may be checking in which alternate reality (that defy the present circumstances) that specific understanding may hold water... so one works with what "is" and the other works with what "can be"
 
Last edited:

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
I just took the original version and got ILE-0. Are we having fun, yet?

If your MBTI type is ENTP, I don't see a problem... My test (the extended one) turned out to be EII-0 (INFj)...
 

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I just took the original version and got ILE-0. Are we having fun, yet?

I had to wait a long time, to see your sarcasm and you cracking a smile. Yes I'm having fun NOW. :hug:
 
Top