The beta quadra

[jixmixfix]

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

Congratulations on not knowing how the system works.

 

[Zarathustra]

Congratulations on not knowing how the system works.

Actually, I do.

You just don't know how the two fit together.

 

[Starry]

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

It's so beta alpha quadra

 

[jixmixfix]

Actually, I do.

You just don't know how the two fit together.

You can't compare apples and oranges, you're arguments are plain silly.

 

[Zarathustra]

It's so beta quadra

It's ALPHA Quadra!!!

 

[Zarathustra]

You can't compare apples and oranges, you're arguments are plain silly.

Congratulations on not reading or comprehending a single one of my posts in this thread.

 

[Zarathustra]

You can't compare apples and oranges...

And no, it's actually more like comparing a Royal Gala to a Jonathan.

 

[jixmixfix]

Congratulations on not reading or comprehending a single one of my posts in this thread.

I read and comprehended your posts and your logic is laughable, try properly backing up your flawed premise next time.

 

[Starry]

It's ALPHA Quadra!!!

Okay, because of my slight aversion to suits...I now need to know if alphas are douchbags...

 

[Zarathustra]

I read and comprehended your posts and you're logic is laughable, try properly backing up your flawed premise next time.

Read and comprehended them did you?

I'm so impressed with you're abilities.

Hey guys, look!

The sensor knows the word "premise"!

 

[Zarathustra]

Okay, because of my slight aversion to suits...I now need to know if alphas are douchbags...

NTPs and SFJS...

Totally

 

[Starry]

NTPs and SFJS...

Totally

Ooooohhh omg yes. I'll edit my post.

 

[jixmixfix]

Read and comprehended them did you?

I'm so impressed with you're abilities.

Hey guys, look!

The sensor knows the word "premise"!

Type bias, nice job.

 

[infinite]

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

You're extremely biased towards your own viewpoint emotionally or you wouldn't call people "fools" for disagreeing.

Also, if you wish to redefine an already existing system to your own liking, then pay more attention to notation, call it Z-socionics or something because if you want to make it conform to MBTI then it's no longer the same system.

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.

Actually, no. It will create problems with internal consistency.

Also, how do you see MBTI Si and socionics Si as the same thing? Explain away?

And the same for Se. Etc.

You've also been unable to respond in the other thread about my reasoning that invalidated your painter analogy. That analogy you used to illustrate how the functions would have to be the same in both systems. Seemed to be the main point of your logic...

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

It's not as black and white as that, actually.

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?

Such an overly simplistic way of reasoning.

Ignore tests. Ignore dichotomies. Ignore type descriptions.

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

Again, I ask how you reconcile MBTI Si with socionics Si.

Jung wasn't perfect either; many others were/are trying to find different ways to define/measure the same things.

Very good point.

Hence, academic battles happen all the time, even (or particularly) when people are discussing the same mechanisms. For instance, Extraversion in the Big Five doesn't necessarily equate to Extraversion in the MBTI; however, they should if we could all agree on one system.

Think of it this way; the concept of extraversion is not a single concept but built up from several elements. You will have to consider this when deciding which definition of extraversion you want to use. You may want to address the dilemma by creating better concepts after you've discovered more about the actual workings of the subject.

Additionally, regardless of what you are measuring... there will exist a continuum. There is just too much support for trait theory... and it's consistent with the core elements of science.

Trait theory is again something else... One big problem I see is people mixing up that with another, different approach to cognitive processing. The way you think does not directly have anything to do with measurable traits. There's only correlations and that signals that the issue is more complex than what can be answered by simply assuming that X way of cognitive thinking will directly result in Y trait or trend of behaviour.

Note this error of assuming a direct connection is often made even when one's aware that from someone having Y trait it doesn't follow that the person has X cognitive process. Even simply assuming that it's just sometimes that Y does directly follow from X is incorrect, IMO.

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.

It's actually just an issue of confusion over similar notation than an issue of attempting to "change reality". If western socionists had decided to keep e.g. the term "volitional sensing" instead of "extraverted sensation" for socionics Se, it would've resulted in less confusion. I'm sure you'd be less confused too if the notation wasn't messed up like this.

And when you change from one system to the other, it obviously will not change the subject of the investigation (psychological workings of people), but it will change the way of looking at it. It doesn't change reality, it's just a different theory on it and possibly it's targeted on different aspects of that reality, as none of these systems aim at an all-encompassing explanation of the entire reality of the subject (people). Whenever it's directed at the same aspects, then it has to be determined which theory is better. That's not determined by simply trying to mesh the two systems together disregarding their original principles and their entire internal consistencies.

As for Jung's cognitive functions, it's a nice system of ideas but of course it's nowhere near perfect. It's a lot better than freudian shit though I guess Anyhow, it's bad logic to use the assumption that Jung's system was that good, to build up a line of reasoning. That's just not sensible reasoning. Yes by the word "sensible" I mean it's not keeping in line with reality well enough. There isn't enough reality checking.

As I said before, pure logical reasoning is indeed important but it's strictly in the domain of mathematics that it's the sole thing to pay attention to. In any other areas that require logical reasoning, you have to also take into account reality for the selection of premises and for keeping an open mind to allow for introduction of new data that may ruin ideas that seemed internally consistent previously.

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.

Dario Nardi is trying to test MBTI empirically. It's clearly possible. I like his research.

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.

Yes there is some amount of reality to the theories. However it doesn't justify the attempt to mesh two different systems together. This reasoning of "different focuses on function-attitudes" is very weak and very superficial logic.

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.

Yup!

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.

Great way of putting it!

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.

Ha-ha, yeah, I was taught some Te at university myself. It's actually pretty good stuff, what they teach you there.

I read and comprehended your posts and you're logic is laughable, try properly backing up your flawed premise next time.

+1

Hey guys, look!

The sensor knows the word "premise"!

Wow not funny trying to use crappy stereotypes even for a joke.

 

[sulfit]

That sounds like some Fe-favoring bullshit if I ever heard any.

[MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION] [MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION] [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]

Ladies, I believe he just called you "immature children" and FJs and TPs "mature adults" when it comes to ethics...

That Fe is more objective and mature than Fi when it comes to forming relationships and character judgments is being discussed on 16types as we speak: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-vs-Delta-Fi?p=1011788&viewfull=1#post1011788 Sorry if it tickles your bloated ego the wrong way. It requires some humility to accept which is clearly not within your reach.

 

[sulfit]

You don't strike me as infantile at all, actually. Playful, yes; childish, no.

Ne ego types are "child-like", not childish or infantile. There is a difference in these descriptors that is often overlooked.

Child-like means that they are exploratory in their approach, looking at everything around them anew, with "eyes of a child". So if you're making literal translations "infantile" -> infantile, you're going to be disappointed that Ne types aren't really like "infants". Many of them hold adult jobs, own businesses and homes, raise children, pay bills, etc. they do everything that is required of adults and don't behave like children, but still they retain this exploratory, curious, researcher-like approach to life. For Se types and types with strong Si things are as they are, "it is how it is" and that's it. But not so for Ne ego "child-like" types who like to imagine and explore alternatives.

 

[Zarathustra]

That Fe is more objective and mature than Fi when it comes to forming relationships and character judgments is being discussed on 16types as we speak: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-vs-Delta-Fi?p=1011788&viewfull=1#post1011788 Sorry if it tickles your bloated ego the wrong way. It requires some humility to accept which is clearly not within your reach.

Objective? Only in the sense that it focuses on values derived from outside of itself. Other than that, there is absolutely nothing more inherently objective about Fe. If an Fe user decides to commit genocide, this is more "objective" just because it's Fe? No, that's bullshit. And how is something more "objective" about forming relationships? That doesn't even make sense.

More mature? Also bullshit. Maturity lies in a person's character, not in what functions they use. There are immature Fe users who use their Fe very immaturely, and there are mature Fi users who use their Fi very maturely.

It takes some objectivity to realize these things, but apparently that is not within your reach.

 

[Starry]

That Fe is more objective and mature than Fi when it comes to forming relationships and character judgments is being discussed on 16types as we speak: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-vs-Delta-Fi?p=1011788&viewfull=1#post1011788 Sorry if it tickles your bloated ego the wrong way. It requires some humility to accept which is clearly not within your reach.

My bloated ego is all tickled the wrong way too now.

As I'm sure you can understand sulfit...this thread being my introduction to the concepts of socionics... why someone of my type might refuse to outright swallow this system whole.

All I really care to know in this moment is if your statement above holds true for Te and Ti as well? In other words... is Te more objective and mature than Ti when it comes to forming relationships and character judgments ?

 

[infinite]

That Fe is more objective and mature than Fi when it comes to forming relationships and character judgments is being discussed on 16types as we speak: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-vs-Delta-Fi?p=1011788&viewfull=1#post1011788 Sorry if it tickles your bloated ego the wrong way. It requires some humility to accept which is clearly not within your reach.

Yeah lol [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] was not even able to put a sensible reply together to my post above.

Not that I know anything about his intellectual abilities; I just know that he's closed off from "reaching" because of god knows what kind of emotional bias for his own theory.

 

[skylights]

That Fe is more objective and mature than Fi when it comes to forming relationships and character judgments is being discussed on 16types as we speak: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-vs-Delta-Fi?p=1011788&viewfull=1#post1011788 Sorry if it tickles your bloated ego the wrong way. It requires some humility to accept which is clearly not within your reach.

(For the sake of ease of speaking, let's assume MBTI-Socionics exact type overlap.)

To a certain extent... I can see what is meant by this. The introverted judgment functions are more idealistic than the extraverted judgment functions. A Fi/Ti user would prefer to see the system working as it "should". A Fe/Te user is more likely to see it immediately for what it actually is.

However, the problem, and the reason I think Fi/Te hackles are getting raised, is I don't know if it's correct to identify this idealistic tendency as poor character judgment. I'm also not sure it's really right to say that the Delta approach (or any approach) is not effective. It really would depend on the situation and the perspectives of the others in the situation, and what the goal/s is/are. Certainly an Alpha or Beta may be able to ward off certain problems up front that a Delta might not catch, but the Delta perspective can also have the advantages of not assuming too quickly, not pigeonholing, and not limiting, as well as a sincere intrapersonal bluntness/forthrightness.

What I have observed IRL is that I have a lot of Fe (ExFj/IxFp) friends and a lot of Fi (ExFP/IxFj) friends and I've watched many of them make judgment mistakes, and it's not so much that one group makes less or more but that they mess up in different ways. The Fis are indeed too open up front, and tend to let some bullshit pass that the Fes tend to write off immediately. But something you will notice with Fes that doesn't happen very often with Fis is that someone can get into an Fe's "trusted" area, and then start using the Fe, and the Fe strangely won't fight back. It's like Fes can make themselves blind and immune to someone revealing the nasty and hurtful parts of their character that they hid once that person has secured the sympathy and trust of the Fe. Whereas generally if that happens with an Fi, the Te is going to rear its head and the offender gets the ugly overbearing exasperated Fi/Te lecture and the boot. But of course that can go too far, too.

This can be true to a lesser extent with Te/Ti as well. I saw it play out in one situation with one Ti and one Fe wanting to stay and reason with a person who had gotten drunk and was physically threatening their family members (an example of letting the person in the "trusted" area do damage), while the Fi wanted to clear out entirely and leave that person alone (example of the Fi/Te boot). What strategy is more mature and effective in that situation? At least personally I think with something as complex as that it's really hard to say and is essentially determined by the details of the situation. Both strategies may have their advantages and disadvantages. In this situation the compromise was to leave the drunk person alone for a few hours then return to reason with them. It worked out very well.