• 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

G

Ginkgo

Guest
jhucgp.png
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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).

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, [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.
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
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, [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.

Which one do you relate to more?

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

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ILI_male_and_female
[MENTION=13147]senza tema[/MENTION]

Which one do you relate to more?

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

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

LittleV

Just a note...
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
271
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w3
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.
 
0

011235813

Guest
[MENTION=13147]senza tema[/MENTION]

Which one do you relate to more?

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

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

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110

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.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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...

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.
 
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
255
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
4w5
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.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
What should NOT change, tho, are what functions the person uses.

People use all four functions. Yes, boys and girls, there are four functions that everyone can use in differing degrees depending on the person. What a revelation. Who knew?
A publication by Katharine D. Myers exists that goes in-depth with numerous possibilities of how, and why, people don't necessarily develop along a fixed path, and may end up with Ne-Fe, rather than Ne-Fi, for example. Nothing is carved in stone. Exceptions to "rules" shouldn't come as a surprise.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Type-Dynamics-Myers-Katherine/dp/1856390772/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

That link was posted for people who actually read.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
A publication by Katharine D. Myers exists that goes in-depth with numerous possibilities of how, and why, people don't necessarily develop along a fixed path, and may end up with Ne-Fe, rather than Ne-Fi, for example.

Yes.

They're called ENTPs.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
People use all four functions. Yes, boys and girls, there are four functions that everyone can use in differing degrees depending on the person. What a revelation. Who knew?
A publication by Katharine D. Myers exists that goes in-depth with numerous possibilities of how, and why, people don't necessarily develop along a fixed path, and may end up with Ne-Fe, rather than Ne-Fi, for example. Nothing is carved in stone. Exceptions to "rules" shouldn't come as a surprise.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Type-Dynamics-Myers-Katherine/dp/1856390772/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

That link was posted for people who actually read.

And, if you've actually been reading what I've been saying pretty much ever since I've been here (and were capable enough to understand it), you'd know nothing you wrote above is actually incompatible with what I've always said.
 
Top