• 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.

The beta quadra

Kierva

#KUWK
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
2,469
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It might just further up the possibility that you would test as INFp (NiFe) in Socionics.

Cognitive functions in one system ought to be the same as cognitive functions in the other (regardless of what the fools say).

The quadras just group the 4 types that have the same "normal" functions in MBTI.

Iow, both the introverted and extroverted types that share the same last three letters.

And then those two types' anima/animus (so the NFPs and the STJs, or the NTJs and the SFPs, etc).

All of Socionics' major elements make tons of sense MBTI-wise, as long as you accept that the cognitive functions of an individual should be the same in both systems.

If you throw that assumption out the window, then it just becomes a giant stupid clusterfuck with no compatibility whatsoever.

Does it make more sense that one would be use Ne and Fi as one's top two functions in both systems?

Or Ne and Fi in one system, and Ni and Fe in the other system?

Even though both systems are derived from Jung?

Ignore tests. Ignore dichotomies. Ignore type descriptions.

Focus on the functions, and all the dumb, unnecessary complications go away.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'd like to add that the N and T function definitions are similar. Socionics Fi is similar to MBTI's Fi, but socionics' Fe adds emphasis on expressing emotions.

The S functions are totally different.

More reading here: http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml everything you'll ever need
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
The cognitive functions should be the same because both systems are deriving them from the same person, Jung. But when defining oneself using a system, one would have to go by its rules... or else it wouldn't be applicable.

You're letting Ti slip you up.

You need some objectivity up in that beast.

There is such a thing as external reality.

These systems are useless if they're not helping describe it.

Just because you start using Socionics as opposed to MBTI does not mean external reality suddenly changes along with you.

Both systems are attempting to describe the same external reality.

The fact that they paint the picture a little differently doesn't mean one's functions should change from one system to the other.

If Jung's cognitive functions are worthwhile at all at describing external reality, then one's functions should be the same in each system.

For instance, Extraversion in the Big Five doesn't necessarily equate to Extraversion in the MBTI

Meh, bleh.

Introversion and extroversion exist on a spectrum.

A lot of people fall near the middle.

I don't really find this point at all invalidates what I said about Socionics and MBTI.

There is just too much support for trait theory... and it's consistent with the core elements of science.

People will find this heinous, but science schmience.

The problem with the scientific method is that it only cares about things that it can empirically test for (which is by no means everything).

That's why trait theory gets played up so much in academia -- because it can be tested for empirically.

But that doesn't mean type isn't actually the better way of looking at things, nor just as true, if not truer.

It just means that it can't be easily empirically tested for, and, as such, the scientific method doesn't have much it can say about it.

This then causes it to fall out of favor amongst the academic establishment, who requires such things to be empirically tested.

It's like the story of the two men on a dark stage, with a lamppost in the middle of the state.

One of them is looking at the ground, seemingly searching for something, only in the area that the light from the lamppost encompasses.

The other man asks the man who is looking for something, "What are you doing?"

The man who is looking says, "I'm looking for my quarter."

The other man says, "Well, did you drop it by the lamppost?"

The man who is looking says, "No. I dropped it over there. [points off stage] But this is the only place where there's light."
 

Zarathustra

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

I'd like to add that the N and T function definitions are similar. Socionics Fi is similar to MBTI's Fi, but socionics' Fe adds emphasis on expressing emotions.

The S functions are totally different.

More reading here: http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml everything you'll ever need

Thanks.

I have noticed that about the S functions.

Si in Socionics focuses much more on bodily sensations and awareness.

Se in Socionics seems to have a very Te-flavored forcefulness to it.

I still don't think that changes what I've said, though.

Those are just different focuses the Socionics theorists have put on those particular function-attitudes.

And I think there's some amount of reality to what they say about them, and that their interpretations should be taken into account.

It still stands, tho, that, if you're an SiTe user in one system, you should be an SiTe user in the other (and so on).
 

Kierva

#KUWK
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
2,469
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It still stands, tho, that, if you're an SiTe user in one system, you should be an SiTe user in the other (and so on).

IMO, it's a bit hard to find equivalents for some types.

Take ESI, for example. If we go by Socionics' definitions, they're described as hard-line moralists who achieve the things they want (FiSe).

By MBTI's caricature, ISFP (FiSe), they're described as easy-going people who adapt to the outer world, while still maintaining their morals.

ISFJ (SiFe) is described as reserved traditionalists who value group ethics. How?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
IMO, it's a bit hard to find equivalents for some types.

I don't think finding equivalents is the right aim, tho.

The right aim is trying to find the truth.

Take ESI, for example. If we go by Socionics' definitions, they're described as hard-line moralists who achieve the things they want (FiSe).

By MBTI's caricature, ISFP (FiSe), they're described as easy-going people who adapt to the outer world, while still maintaining their morals.

For example, in this case, I see no problem at all.

The truth likely lies somewhere in between.

Maybe a little bit of both.

Maybe some individuals are a little more like one.

While others are a little more like the other.

Pretty simple solution, if you ask me.

ISFJ (SiFe) is described as reserved traditionalists who value group ethics. How?

That's only the MBTI characterization.

What's the Socionics one?

Kinda sensualistic harlots, no?

You ever met our [MENTION=4398]Giggly[/MENTION]?

Sometimes I'm not sure which she is?

Both, perhaps?

:D
 

LittleV

Just a note...
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
271
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w3
You're letting Ti slip you up.

You need some objectivity up in that beast.

There is such a thing as external reality.

These systems are useless if they're not helping describe it.

Just because you start using Socionics as opposed to MBTI does not mean external reality suddenly changes along with you.

Both systems are attempting to describe the same external reality.

The fact that they paint the picture a little differently doesn't mean one's functions should change from one system to the other.

If Jung's cognitive functions are worthwhile at all at describing external reality, then one's functions should be the same in each system.

This was also what I was saying in my piece; I'd agreed with this. I was just noting that utilizing a system also means going along with its internal consistency.


Meh, bleh.

Introversion and extroversion exist on a spectrum.

A lot of people fall near the middle.

I don't really find this point at all invalidates what I said about Socionics and MBTI.

There's much more that lies on a continuum (genes can also change) that shouldn't be discounted; it's good (and difficult) to simplify things to its core parts... but it's also important not to forget that seeing all of the other pieces could help improve the existing system.


People will find this heinous, but science schmience.

The problem with the scientific method is that it only cares about things that it can empirically test for (which is by no means everything).

That's why trait theory gets played up so much in academia -- because it can be tested for empirically.

But that doesn't mean type isn't actually the better way of looking at things, nor just as true, if not truer.

It just means that it can't be easily empirically tested for, and, as such, the scientific method doesn't have much it can say about it.

This then causes it to fall out of favor amongst the academic establishment, who requires such things to be empirically tested.

It's like the story of the two men on a dark stage, with a lamppost in the middle of the state.

One of them is looking at the ground, seemingly searching for something, only in the area that the light from the lamppost encompasses.

The other man asks the man who is looking for something, "What are you doing?"

The man who is looking says, "I'm looking for my quarter."

The other man says, "Well, did you drop it by the lamppost?"

The man who is looking says, "No. I dropped it over there. [points off stage] But this is the only place where there's light."

I see what you're saying about what science can and cannot test. I find that there's value on both sides... and that you'd first have to work with what you have rather than try something with insufficient resources. I've been around a lot of Te types lately... which has helped balance me a lot, even though this wasn't my choice. I've been told not to bring in any ideas that cannot be tested, even if it'd make internal sense in every way. I've had to change my tactics a lot... so I know what you mean, but I thought I should also validate the other side. I appreciate you trying to 'Ti' with me with the metaphor, nonetheless.
 

Kierva

#KUWK
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
2,469
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
For example, in this case, I see no problem at all.

The truth likely lies somewhere in between.

Maybe a little bit of both.

Maybe some individuals are a little more like one.

While others are a little more like the other.

Pretty simple solution, if you ask me.
Point taken.



That's only the MBTI characterization.

What's the Socionics one?

Kinda sensualistic harlots, no?

You ever met our [MENTION=4398]Giggly[/MENTION]?

Sometimes I'm not sure which she is?

Both, perhaps?

:D

Maybe? I wouldn't know, haven't talked to her much. But you're right about the sensualistic harlots part.
 

Azure Flame

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
2,317
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
8w7
Both systems describe the same functions but in a different way. The fact that the wording is different (Se socionics = sensing power vaccuums and motivation: vs : MBTI Se, using 5 senses in a tangible way).

The stereotypes are not the same, however.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Both systems describe the same functions but in a different way. The fact that the wording is different (Se socionics = sensing power vaccuumit and motivation: vs : MBTI Se, using 5 senses in a tangible way).

The stereotypes are not the same, however.

True.

But I think one can learn a bit about the actual types from both.

As I said before: the truth lies somewhere in between.

Wrt ESFPs/SEEs: consider the effect growing up in the communist Soviet Union vs free market America would have on what characteristics of the type manifest more prominently, and thus what is observed more readily in each environment (it's almost like typological epigenetics).

In the Soviet bloc, you're gunna see their hard-scrapping, cut-throat, try-to-get-by in this corrupt, under-producing society. Kind of a "how does an ESFP look when you throw them into a bleak, rigid environment, with strong social rules, and not much income or economic vibrancy".

Versus throwing them into a free-wheeling capitalistic society that encourages them to work hard and party harder. Where they can earn their paycheck, and then go blow it up their noses, or on whatever myriad sensorial pleasures they can find within their vicinity.

It's still the same core personality, it just must respond a bit differently to each environment.

And the stereotypes, observations, and descriptions (both profile and functional) will follow from those.
 

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
Hehehe... perfect.

:evilgenius:



Yes, you're a delta.

Deltas are just STJs and NFPs.

Betas are just STPs and NFJs.

Gammas are just NTJs and SFPs.

Alphas are just NTPs and SFJs.

Because some nitwits can't think, they don't realize this.

It's a completely different system they don't translate to each other that easy. An MBTI INFJ can be a socionics INFP or INFJ or even an ENFJ because the MBTI functions don't define the socionics functions the same way.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
It's a completely different system they don't translate to each other that easy. An MBTI INFJ can be a socionics INFP or INFJ or even an ENFJ because the MBTI functions don't define the socionics functions the same way.

Congratulations on not reading or comprehending a single thing I said after that.
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm quoting just to learn about your new avatar...
I love the impeccably-dressed-yet-not-at-all-trying-to-draw-attention-to-oneself vibe. :ninja:
 
0

011235813

Guest
I love the impeccably-dressed-yet-not-at-all-trying-to-draw-attention-to-oneself vibe. :ninja:

Why avoid drawing attention to yourself though? I guarantee I will look at your posts more (and so will lots of other people) if you have a hot guy in an impeccable suit up there.
 

Kierva

#KUWK
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
2,469
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Why avoid drawing attention to yourself though? I guarantee I will look at your posts more (and so will lots of other people) if you have a hot guy in an impeccable suit up there.

It distracts from the point of the post.
 
0

011235813

Guest
Pay attention to their looks or what they're saying?

What they're saying.

Attractive people are generally perceived by their peers as more intelligent.

Appearance is just an initial hook a lot of the time.
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Why avoid drawing attention to yourself though? I guarantee I will look at your posts more (and so will lots of other people) if you have a hot guy in an impeccable suit up there.
People would confuse me with disco. :alttongue:
 
Top