• 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.

How Do You Tell N from S?

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well IS_Ps lead with Si, ES_Ps lead with Se. EPs lead with Pe, IPs lead with Pi in socionics. And there is no J/P switch.

They pretty much define Se differently. I don't really relate to socionics Se.
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
They pretty much define Se differently. I don't really relate to socionics Se.

You say this, yet they seem remarkably similar:

Socionics Wiki said:
Types that value Se are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value Se.There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of Si-valuing quadras. 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".

Linda Berens said:
Extraverted Sensing occurs when we become aware of what is in the physical world in rich detail. We may be drawn to act on what we experience to get an immediate result. We notice relevant facts and occurrences in a sea of data and experiences, learning all the facts we can about the immediate context or area of focus and what goes on in that context. An active seeking of more and more input to get the whole picture may occur until all sources of input have been exhausted or something else captures our attention. Extraverted Sensing is operating when we freely follow exciting physical impulses or instincts as they come up and enjoy the thrill of action in the present moment. A oneness with the physical world and a total absorption may exist as we move, touch, and sense what is around us. The process involves instantly reading cues to see how far we can go in a situation and still get the impact we want or respond to the situation with presence.

They're certainly worded differently, but I can sense that they're pointing toward the same thing.

I think the difference is that those who dabble in MBTI prefer to describe the functions as subjective perspectives, whereas Socionics tries to define the behaviour determined by those perspectives. MBTI aims to be more subjective, whereas Socionics aims to be more objective. Which probably explains why MBTI is far more popular, since people more easily relate to the descriptions. :)
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm a bit gutted no one elaborated on my original if antiquated method below :) :D

Well, you should find a witch's teat on them before you go dunking. It's more reliable when you cross-check, you know ...
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well IS_Ps lead with Si, ES_Ps lead with Se. EPs lead with Pe, IPs lead with Pi in socionics. And there is no J/P switch.

They pretty much define Se differently. I don't really relate to socionics Se.

I don't really like the idea that ISPs and ESPs are using different forms of Sensing. That's just clearly and obviously not true in my experience with them.

Unless, of course, by "ISP" you mean the people that MBTI refers to as ISJs, in which case you're just arguing semantics. All you're doing is putting a different label on the same category, not creating a genuine conceptual difference.

I'd also love to hear an explanation for how Jung's description of Si fits better for SPs than SJs, because that completely contradicts everything I've ever read (including Jung and Lenore) about either.
 

sLiPpY

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
2,003
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
hmm... I don't understand all the lingo, but as to SP's...

It's like the difference between "oh, look! Potatoe chips!" and "oh, this potatoe chip is saltier than the one I had last week."
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Unless, of course, by "ISP" you mean the people that MBTI refers to as ISJs, in which case you're just arguing semantics. All you're doing is putting a different label on the same category, not creating a genuine conceptual difference.

For the third time you don't switch J/P. And I honestly don't understand why you're dismissing the entire theory without doing any research. Can you explain why? Doesn't seem like the rational thing to do.
 

Asterion

Ruler of the Stars
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
2,331
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
For the third time you don't switch J/P.

You only seem to do it sometimes... INFPs that are INFjs, INTJs that are INTps and INTPs that are also INTps. which means that people are either misstyping themselves in MBTI or Socionics, or that the systems are totally incompatible.

I get the impression that this happens because of the mathematics they use to define the types, and that it all starts at ENTP (which explains why ENTP doesn't change between the two, and neither do most of the other extraverts).
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
For the third time you don't switch J/P. And I honestly don't understand why you're dismissing the entire theory without doing any research. Can you explain why? Doesn't seem like the rational thing to do.

Once again, I'm not dismissing it. I've read the basic literature and understand the general idea and it seems to work just fine (at least, apart from the relationships part.) Please note that I'm not declaring it inferior to MBTI--just not significantly different enough for it to particularly matter which system you use.

You only switch J/P for introverts, and only because socionics' "rational" dimension obviously = EJ/IP, and its "irrational" one obviously = EP/IJ. Yes, that requires phrasing and labeling things a little bit differently, but try to look at the bigger picture here. What real advantage does Socionics have over MBTI? There just really aren't any new concepts in Socionics if you're already familiar with Jung. It really doesn't matter that Socionics has a different definition of Si or Se or changes which types of people are rational/irrational or any of that stuff. These are all just differences in semantics and labeling of the same fundamental cognitive processes and attitudes.

This is the same reason I haven't looked into the Enneagram; I just don't care because all it offers is another possible way of categorizing the same ideas. You're focusing on really trivial details and ignoring the overall conceptual similarity and usage between all typological systems.

I read all of the links you've sent on the topic and several other overviews and I'm sorry but I really don't see what's conceptually different besides rearranging a few labels (and of course, the whole utterly ridiculous "duality" system of compatibility.)

The supposed "huge differences" in functional definitions that you cite really don't seem that different to me at all. Consider this--I'm an Ne dominant and (at least in Jung's terms) Ne is about noting conceptual similarities between different external world systems. I may be seeing something you're not.

Yeah, I get that not every IxxP MBTI type lines up precisely with an IxxJ Socionics type, but that's insignificant in the broader picture because MBTI and Socionics still categorize people according to fundamentally similar critera, even if a couple of minor categorical details are different. You keep pointing out that not every MBTI type lines up exactly word-for-word with a Socionics type, but I can't really figure why you think that matters in the first place. Even if you take some characteristics from this type group and swap them with some from that type group, you haven't changed the basis of the system.

I think Socionics works fine, aside from the relationships part. It's just a different language that describes the exact same ideas in remarkably conceptually similar terms. Yes, I get it; some people "test" into Socionics types that don't line up precisely with every MBTI type; I just don't think you understand how truly insignificant this is. Remember how irrelevant "testing" of psychological type is, anyway--unverifiable and dependent upon self-report.

I'm not arguing that you can call it a "manzana" too; I'm just tired of hearing why "apple" is an inferior term when both work equally well despite being spelled and pronounced differently.

Both systems are oversimplifications of Jung, anyway. The only part of MBTI I even use is its labels; beyond that I'm operating entirely on Jungian functional ideas, not MBTI profiles. MBTI's idea of P/J is garbage to me --I thought you knew that about me.
 

sleepy

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
536
And so it goes... each layer adds something to my experiences... I watch I guess until I stop getting stuff out of it....
That's impressive. For me seeing something twice is boring. And trick myself into thinking I got it all at once. At least what's relevant for me.
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
That's impressive. For me seeing something twice is boring. And trick myself into thinking I got it all at once. At least what's relevant for me.

theres nothing wrogn with that, most films/books I wont look at twice, so it's not an every day occurance. I have a book I've been reading since I was a teen, I read it every once in a while to see if it makes more sense to me and it nevre does (the Owl Service)... ooooh Wiki has a bit on it, I may just reach figure out some more about it....
The Owl Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

> What do you know, that book is one of the top books written in the last 70 years... the wiki link explains the most complex plot... No wonder I read it so many times.

I watched Once Upon a Time in America several time too.

I have been watching some rubbish film this evening I wont see it again... ;)
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
For the third time you don't switch J/P. And I honestly don't understand why you're dismissing the entire theory without doing any research. Can you explain why? Doesn't seem like the rational thing to do.

If I were to guess, it would be the same reasons I do - Enneagram is too wrapped up in mysticism and spirituality, while socionics is the same, along with throwing the physical appearance stuff in there (which doesn't make any sense, other than general gestures and expressions).
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
being handy is one indicator, but not always apparent from typical office/party/playing sports activities
:rofl1: handyness... I can beat quite a few Sensors in that field :D (Do I get an S point for my handyness?)
Then again, I'm only handy when I'm interested in the thing I'm doing. So - painting, working with clay, cooking, building a wine rack, repairing a bike... no problem. Eating without spilling food? Big problem.

To me, one of the N (maybe NP) indicators are 'thought leaps' and jumping from one topic to the other.

Living in the future (N) versus living in the present (S) seems also a quite big difference. But that's not really visible unless you know the person very well. Maybe I only see that as a big difference because that's one of the things I'm quite extreme at.

Interested in abstract theories can also be an indicator.
 
Top