• 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

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
[MENTION=7278]jixmixfix[/MENTION] How do you not see yourself as Se valuing? From what I've seen of you one-sidedly on this forum, you possess the stereotypical quality of Socionics Se with its domineering, forceful, and determined nature over Si's desire for comfort, passive interaction, and the minimization of conflict in favor of pleasant interaction.

In fact, your first quote in this thread illustrates your Se determination of position over Si's adaptation of position.

Just a thought.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals.



I'll be sure to tell my CEO workaholic (MBTI) ISTJ dad who achieved, achieved, achieved, that all he's really interested in is fucking off. What a riot.
I can't believe there are still some people left who don't know the MBTI and Socionics are different.

Amazing.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Actually no I'm Si-Te in Socionics and Ti-Se in MBTI. Considering how many people in this thread were trying to explain to you how Socionics works and your ability to grasp the concept shows your true "N" ability. It wouldn't surprise me if you were actually an ISTJ.

:rofl1:

And now you're calling sensors stupid... even though you are one.

Add one more to the comedy of errors!

Again you fail to grasp basic information. I was referring to the subtypes NOT THE ACTUAL FUNCTIONS THEMSELVES in that post, Nice try. You probably haven't even heard of subtypes let alone tried to understand them with your feeble mind.

:rotfl:

Actually, I know exactly what the subtypes are...

Which is why I would never be so dumb as to not realize that they are the first two functions of the type (and thus not SiTi for SLIs/ISTps/ISTJs/SiTe).

Easy there son, I'm not the one here who is having trouble grasping the concepts of socionics, as you can see by the grueling effort of many in this thread trying to educate you.

:laugh:

The vast majority of people here agree with me, and are laughing at you over reps for what you've done in this thread.

The only people "educating" me are two ISTPs whose lack of conceptual strength has them not realizing the truth.
 

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
And now you're calling sensors stupid... even though you are one.

Add one more to the comedy of errors!

No I was referring to your lack of conceptual ability.

Actually, I know exactly what the subtypes are...

Which is why I would never be so dumb as to not realize that they are the first two functions of the type (and thus not SiTi for SLIs/ISTps/ISTJs/SiTe).

Yet you still didn't understand that I was referring to subtypes which makes you pretty clueless regardless.


The only people "educating" me are two ISTPs whose lack of conceptual strength has them not realizing the truth.

Funny how two ISTp's know better about function theory than an INTJ. I should be the one laughing here.:rofl1:
 

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals.



I'll be sure to tell my CEO workaholic (MBTI) ISTJ dad who achieved, achieved, achieved, that all he's really interested in is fucking off. What a riot.
I can't believe there are still some people left who don't know the MBTI and Socionics are different.

Amazing.

+1
 

jixmixfix

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
4,278
[MENTION=7278]jixmixfix[/MENTION] How do you not see yourself as Se valuing? From what I've seen of you one-sidedly on this forum, you possess the stereotypical quality of Socionics Se with its domineering, forceful, and determined nature over Si's desire for comfort, passive interaction, and the minimization of conflict in favor of pleasant interaction.

In fact, your first quote in this thread illustrates your Se determination of position over Si's adaptation of position.

Just a thought.

If you knew me in real life you would think differently. You are judging me by the few posts I've made on the internet.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals.



I'll be sure to tell my CEO workaholic (MBTI) ISTJ dad who achieved, achieved, achieved, that all he's really interested in is fucking off. What a riot.
I can't believe there are still some people left who don't know the MBTI and Socionics are different.

Amazing.

Si in theory is the intrinsic realization of one's own potential or power, juxtaposing Se which is the external realization of external object's power and potential in the environment; therefore, it stands to reason that the reason the stereotypical ISTp is concerned with enjoyable activities is because they come to the possibly incorrect realization that they do not have the potential or power to achieve certain goals (unhealthy self-acceptance?), and I've actually witnessed this in ISTps. Therefore, if an ISTp comes to the realization that they do have the potential and the power to achieve a goal, they will achieve it, for it is within their mental grasp. With an intelligent, confident, and competent individual like your father probably is, the potential and power he saw within himself allowed him to broaden his horizons and made things that would seem impossibly hard to some ISTps seem reachable and doable. I have known ISTps who actively strive to achieve because they honestly believe their goals are within their grasps, and I've seen ISTps shrug off goals as if they knew they couldn't reach them, preferring to do what is comfortable according to their perception of their own power and potential intrinsic of themselves.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals.

Which profile is that one line taken from?

As with any profile, some are better, and some are worse, than others.

I'll be sure to tell my CEO workaholic (MBTI) ISTJ dad who achieved, achieved, achieved, that all he's really interested in is fucking off.

And, as you know, Jag, my dad is also an ISTJ (and a workaholic).

Which is part of the reason I delved into this issue, because he clearly sounded more like one of the (shitty) profiles on socionics.com for ISTjs, as opposed to ISTps, even tho he clearly is an ISTJ in MBTI.

The reason for this, tho, is already taken into account in my position.

How does this description fit your father:

Te blocked with Si

Delta types make a point of talking about the rationale behind their actions and emphasizing the productiveness or unproductiveness of different ways of doing things - even in such emotional areas as personal relationships. Delta types value peaceful, refreshing activities where they are doing something useful and balancing out their inner world at the same time. Delta types have the philosophy that they will have to rely on their own industriousness to achieve their goals rather than on luck, speculation, group effort, or strong leadership.

I can't believe there are still some people left who don't know the MBTI and Socionics are different.

Amazing.

Actually, noone's making the argument that they're not.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
The reason they're not compatible is because they're different.

Read the arguments made elsewhere so you can actually understand what is meant by compatible in this context.

Different =/= not compatible


I already am.

Try actually figuring out the arguments made.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Z, it's impossible to take you seriously.



The reason they're not compatible is because they're so different. Especially how the elements are defined. Wake up.

The reason they aren't compatible right now is due to the perspective through which the functions are defined. JCF defines the functions internally, describing how each function actively works, contributes, synthesizes, interprets, etc., while Socionics defines the functions externally, how others perceive users of those functions. To others, an ILI/INTJ/INTp's Ni would definitely seem like the ability to determine where a course of events is heading and how to plan for the future, but it misses the internal perspective of the function and glosses over it with "ILIs usually have a very active, vivid imagination" (this is used for LIIs, as well, but inherently different). Socionics misses what JCF provides, that Ni in addition to forseeing where trends are heading also hyper-analyzes situations from the past as well as concepts, squeezes every ounce of possible information out of fragmented, ambiguous data, and the personal integration that occurs when Ni latches onto an idea, concept, or theory, and the reason Socionics doesn't cover it is because other people don't notice these other mechanics of Ni working, they only see what is presented on the outside to them, which in the case of the ILI, is predictions of future trends. The two systems aren't fundamentally different, they describe each others' blind-spots, Socionics shows how the functions are perceived externally and through the third person, JCF shows how the functions work internally and how they are perceived through the first person.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
The reason they aren't compatible right now is due to the perspective through which the functions are defined.

From the looks of this thread, it appears some people have a problem with different models being used to look at things in different ways - as if there should be only one way to look at something. Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but we've been over this a million times in this forum. The definitions are different. People know that. Big deal.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Especially how the elements are defined.

Yes, I agree.

And this has already been covered.

Socionics puts more emphasis of "Jish" qualities on Judging functions, regardless of whether they're extroverted.

This then makes types that have a dominant introverted Judging function sound more "Jish" in Socionics than in MBTI.

And it makes types that have a dominant introverted Perceiving function sound more "Pish" in Socionics than MBTI.

And, lastly, each theorist emphasizes different things they believe to be true about the functions.

This exists within the "MBTI" world, between different theorists.

It exists within the Socionics world, between Socionics theorists.

And it exists between "MBTI" theorists and Socionics theorists.

And, lastly, it exists between Jung and all of them.

That doesn't mean, tho, that when they're trying to describe Extroverted Sensing, that they're not trying to describe the same thing.

They may emphasize different things about it, they may disagree about certain things about it, but they're still trying to describe the same thing.

10 Different Painters + Same Scene = 10 Different Paintings

Some will be more alike than others, some will be better than others, some will focus on things other didn't even paint.

Regardless, the underlying scene was the same.

Our job is to figure out which painters were most insightful and accurate, and what was insightful and accurate about what they painted.
 
Top