User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 125

  1. #81
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    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.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    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}]).

  3. #83
    failed poetry slam career chubber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    In socionics the fake Fe of the INTp is the conscience effort of Fe or blind spot/PoLR as some call it.

  4. #84
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    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.

  5. #85
    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
    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 @Zarathustra 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 @Zarathustra.
    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.

  6. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleV View Post
    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.
    +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?

  7. #87
    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
    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, @RaptorWizard, 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.

  8. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    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.)


    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...
    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.

  9. #89
    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 infinity- View Post
    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.

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by calb View Post
    Can you show us the exact differences that you are seeing? Make a table or something, lets see what you see.
    Aleksei and Aestrivex already did a pretty good job on this though I'm sure it could be made an even better job;

    http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...ml#post2901295

    Beyond this, I can only say, cognitive neuroscience

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