The beta quadra

[Alea_iacta_est]

Okay




If this INTp profile correctly described those people you called ENTj's, that is, it describes actual observations according to reality, then what's wrong about it? The system used to explain the observations?




I don't see how skepticism or the love of structure is "worse" than the capability to thrive in chaos. This is your subjective interpretation of values, no?




I believe something exists that's described by these systems (and other systems), what I don't believe is that there is necessarily exactly 8 functions. Just because there is three systems out there that use this assumption as the basis for their explanations, it doesn't make this assumption any more true. Does it for you?

Also, leave astrology out of this. Do you really think that's the only other alternative anyway?

Also note, how the idea that there's not just 8 functions, doesn't have to kill the whole point of these personality systems. (It just shows they are not perfect but we already know that.) Though maybe the point of them is different for you than for me.

It doesn't make the assumption anymore true, we have to put our faith in the people who came up with these systems such as Jung and the Lithuanian inventor of Socionics who have a much more valid expertise than us. We follow the system already laid out for us to figure out who we are in that system, it's veracity will be determined when it is debunked or not by people with a much higher authority than us amateurs.

The reason why the type profile wouldn't work with the ENTjs and INTp profile is because of the fact that the INTp's theoretical model is Ni - Te - Si - Fe, so if we only use people who are actually ENTjs (Te - Ni - Fe - Si), then we have corrupted the profile, as those people's descriptions belong in the ENTj profile.

The skepticism argument I made was Soviet Russia's influence, not my own personal take, those qualities are stereotypical corruptions created by the atmosphere of the Soviet Era. They preferred people who furthered the system with entrepreneurial strength (Ep) and who followed and lead the system (Ij and Ej) over those who critiqued the system (Ip); therefore, those with Ip temperaments are often characterized in descriptions with negative connotations such as critical, inactive, etc.

 

[infinite]

It doesn't make the assumption anymore true, we have to put our faith in the people who came up with these systems such as Jung and the Lithuanian inventor of Socionics who have a much more valid expertise than us.

Sorry I don't see any need to "put faith" in whoever or whatever

I have a brain and can figure it out for myself if something works for me or not.

We follow the system already laid out for us to figure out who we are in that system, it's veracity will be determined when it is debunked or not by people with a much higher authority than us amateurs.

Sure we can use the system for stuff but we don't have to wait for people with the "much higher authority" to figure out the veracity of stuff. Science is open to anyone.

The reason why the type profile wouldn't work with the ENTjs and INTp profile is because of the fact that the INTp's theoretical model is Ni - Te - Si - Fe, so if we only use people who are actually ENTjs (Te - Ni - Fe - Si), then we have corrupted the profile, as those people's descriptions belong in the ENTj profile.

You're trying to say that the label and the explanation behind it is wrong, right?

The description itself can still be valid if it does actually describe a group of people well.

My original point was about how there isn't necessarily just 16 type profiles that can be correct.

The skepticism argument I made was Soviet Russia's influence, not my own personal take, those qualities are stereotypical corruptions created by the atmosphere of the Soviet Era. They preferred people who furthered the system with entrepreneurial strength (Ep) and who followed and lead the system (Ij and Ej) over those who critiqued the system (Ip); therefore, those with Ip temperaments are often characterized in descriptions with negative connotations such as critical, inactive, etc.

I dunno I never noticed it if IP's were characterized more negatively than the other types. I can list negative traits for the other temperaments no problem.

I'm not saying the russian stuff can't be distorted in some way, of course.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Sorry I don't see any need to "put faith" in whoever or whatever

I have a brain and can figure it out for myself if something works for me or not.




Sure we can use the system for stuff but we don't have to wait for people with the "much higher authority" to figure out the veracity of stuff. Science is open to anyone.




You're trying to say that the label and the explanation behind it is wrong, right?

The description itself can still be valid if it does actually describe a group of people well.

My original point was about how there isn't necessarily just 16 type profiles that can be correct.




I dunno I never noticed it if IP's were characterized more negatively than the other types. I can list negative traits for the other temperaments no problem.

I'm not saying the russian stuff can't be distorted in some way, of course.

We approach this system in two different ways, and it is ironically explainable through the system itself. As a Ti leading type, you make sense of the system and weigh whether or not your understanding of the system lines up with your principles on how things should work, whereas I am a Te auxillary type, meaning that I accept the system as it is with the information it provides and play the game so long as it doesn't stray from reality. Therefore, Ti types in general are more distrustful of systems that do not resonate with their logical principles and understanding, which is itself good and bad, for it is good to approach things with skepticism, but it is bad to shun a system that has been handcrafted by people who probably have much more information and expertise than you do at the present time. Similarly, there is good and bad to Te types, as with Te, we accept the system as it is and employ it, which is good and objective, but we also have a habit of robotically following systems we believe hold veracity, and that is bad, to be without some healthy dose of skepticism. The point is that to discredit an entire system that has been built on the foundation of some (though questionable) empirical studies along with professionals in this field due to your own personal comprehension of the system can be foolish.

I'm trying to say that the label is based off the theoretical model that Jung and his followers postulated, and that the control group that would be tested would not be of the right type to describe said theoretical model. The theoretical model should remain constant here, the individuals used to describe said model, however, are questionably variables that require painstaking accuracy to confide in. The reason why we condense these into only 16 different boxes is because it is feasible to justify that every individual is in one of the boxes or another, and that within those boxes are more explanations for various idiosyncrasies such as subtypes and quirks. The 16 type system was built to include each individual according to the assessment of 8 components of the human psyche.

Just had a bit of a thought, the SLI's description of lead Si is said to have been characterized by apparent inactivity and laziness, an unwillingness to achieve goals, to surround oneself in a familiar environment. In Soviet Russia, society was indoctrinated into accepting their status as equals with everyone else, and if it is true that Si also deals with the innate potential and power within oneself and one's own limitations, then it would seem that the SLI would believe themselves to be simply equal with everyone else, not striving to be anything beyond what everyone else is doing (objective view of achievement by Creative/Auxillary Te), as they truly believed they had as much power as everyone else, which, in the Soviet Union, was little. In that kind of society, it is no wonder why SLIs were attributed with a lazy demeanor, they might have convinced themselves that they aren't more powerful than everyone else and therefore should only strive to achieve the basic fundamental needs of human life and sustain a family.

 

[LittleV]

I can check for practical consequences but that doesn't require me envisioning the situation in the way I think you meant it (?).

Did you mean social consequences?

Problem of picking fights?

Yup, lol. When Ni mediates different types of information... it focuses on linking them to its current system in order to make inferences that could be used to predict dynamics, often within human relations, Fe.

Productive communication would sure be good. I don't really know what you mean about wanting to be able to console others, in public or private?

Private (especially ESTP's - only with those they care about in some way). Public persona would be important with the caveat that there would have to be some signs of truth (especially for the Beta introverts).

I'm not even sure I understand the situation, why they were not talking, etc.

Petty things... different habits. Though, my ISTP friend has been a lot better with social interactions since; he's now a high school teacher. You could send me a PM me if you have any other questions.

 

[infinite]

We approach this system in two different ways, and it is ironically explainable through the system itself. As a Ti leading type, you make sense of the system and weigh whether or not your understanding of the system lines up with your principles on how things should work, whereas I am a Te auxillary type, meaning that I accept the system as it is with the information it provides and play the game so long as it doesn't stray from reality. Therefore, Ti types in general are more distrustful of systems that do not resonate with their logical principles and understanding, which is itself good and bad, for it is good to approach things with skepticism, but it is bad to shun a system that has been handcrafted by people who probably have much more information and expertise than you do at the present time. Similarly, there is good and bad to Te types, as with Te, we accept the system as it is and employ it, which is good and objective, but we also have a habit of robotically following systems we believe hold veracity, and that is bad, to be without some healthy dose of skepticism. The point is that to discredit an entire system that has been built on the foundation of some (though questionable) empirical studies along with professionals in this field due to your own personal comprehension of the system can be foolish.

Heh a model is just a model, not the truth. Doesn't mean I discredit absolutely everything in the system. I also don't just use my own personal ideas, I heavily borrow from other scientific research, things that made a lot of sense to me. Yes I did draw my own personal views from all of that, I'm just saying I didn't start from nothing. Relying on scientific research also involves expertise. Maybe more expertise than what a few russian socionists ever had. So overall I don't see myself as doing anything foolish

But yeah we view systems stuff differently.

I'm trying to say that the label is based off the theoretical model that Jung and his followers postulated, and that the control group that would be tested would not be of the right type to describe said theoretical model.

Yeah, though your thought experiment is still not really making much sense to me. Either a model is being made based on the observations and then this resulting model (from the ENTj data) is just different from the original one - which doesn't mean it's worse - or it would be noticed that the group of people are of a different type according to the original model and then it's a non-issue. If it's not noticed then that doesn't say a lot of nice things about the validity of the method used to determine type It would basically sound like subjective nonsense.

So I don't see your thought experiment supporting the idea that one set of descriptions/type profiles is worse than the other set. (It may still be worse but not because of whatever model is used to explain it)

The reason why we condense these into only 16 different boxes is because it is feasible to justify that every individual is in one of the boxes or another, and that within those boxes are more explanations for various idiosyncrasies such as subtypes and quirks. The 16 type system was built to include each individual according to the assessment of 8 components of the human psyche.

The idiosyncrasies should be explained by things outside the narrow type model. Subtypes stuff isn't going to solve all that.

You aren't really just using 16 boxes anyway, you're into enneagram too... Enneagram just doesn't have confusing notation. If socionics named functions different from MBTI functions and especially if it wasn't declared to have some jungian roots, maybe you would treat it as a different system then Think about that.

Just had a bit of a thought, the SLI's description of lead Si is said to have been characterized by apparent inactivity and laziness, an unwillingness to achieve goals, to surround oneself in a familiar environment.

Uhh MBTI Si does stray much further from original Jungian Si than this. So explain it based on the American society?

Yup, lol. When Ni mediates different types of information... it focuses on linking them to its current system in order to make inferences that could be used to predict dynamics, often within human relations, Fe.

I see. Guess in my case being soc-last doesn't help Or just my Fe is too crappy compared to Ti (In either of the two systems)

Private (especially ESTP's - only with those they care about in some way). Public persona would be important with the caveat that there would have to be some signs of truth (especially for the Beta introverts).

I'm not really into "persona"... what you say about beta introverts makes more sense

Petty things... different habits. Though, my ISTP friend has been a lot better with social interactions since; he's now a high school teacher. You could send me a PM me if you have any other questions.

Sure thanks, if I think of something I'll msg you

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

[MENTION=9075]infinity[/MENTION]

What you are attempting to derive from my thought experiment is that the ENTj individuals used to build the INTp profile would simply just make it to where only ENTjs would actually type as INTps in that specific instance. However, I am saying that the type itself (Ni - Te - Si - Fe) is constant and therefore requires INTp individuals to build an accurate model instead of ENTjs who think they are INTps, to ensure that the system stays pure.

The problem is that Socionics does have Jungian roots and that it does share characteristics with MBTI functions in one way or another. It is a matter of the perspective of these functions (as discussed earlier) from an external (Socionics) or internal (JCF) view. Why must the system be separate from MBTI JCF? And more curiously, why has every single JCF ISTP that I have seen believe that they are and should be two different systems? The plot thickens, though that is for another discussion.

I would love to explain Si through American society, but I do not have the resources to conduct any Socionics experiments to attempt to root out the corrupted type descriptions based off of Soviet Russia through the assessment of several hundred or even thousand individuals to build more accurate type profiles in a suitable environment.

 

[infinite]

What you are attempting to derive from my thought experiment is that the ENTj individuals used to build the INTp profile would simply just make it to where only ENTjs would actually type as INTps in that specific instance. However, I am saying that the type itself (Ni - Te - Si - Fe) is constant and therefore requires INTp individuals to build an accurate model instead of ENTjs who think they are INTps, to ensure that the system stays pure.

Only mathematics is that pure Otherwise, I think concepts come from observation. They don't really exist as "pure", detached from reality. Well they do in our midns but they actually depend on reality. Not the other way around. You seem to be looking at concepts in this "purist" way though.

The problem is that Socionics does have Jungian roots and that it does share characteristics with MBTI functions in one way or another. It is a matter of the perspective of these functions (as discussed earlier) from an external (Socionics) or internal (JCF) view. Why must the system be separate from MBTI JCF?

It does share some characteristics with MBTI yeah. But what would you do if the notation was different enough? Enneagram also shares some stuff with MBTI, you can loosely correlate some of the enneagram types with MBTI functions. I've seen people play with that.

Socionics, in my view, must be separate from MBTI because it's not fully compatible. Guess I'm more strict on compatibility issues than you are. I mean, I can't think of another reason why some people don't see the problem that I do see.

Oh yeah and that different perspectives idea still doesn't explain all the discrepancies.

And more curiously, why has every single JCF ISTP that I have seen believe that they are and should be two different systems? The plot thickens, though that is for another discussion.

Ahahaha. Tell me what your theory is on this one ;P

How many such ISTPs have you seen so far btw?

I would love to explain Si through American society, but I do not have the resources to conduct any Socionics experiments to attempt to root out the corrupted type descriptions based off of Soviet Russia through the assessment of several hundred or even thousand individuals to build more accurate type profiles in a suitable environment.

Well maybe this way you're sparing yourself of the shock of discovering it isn't just 16 profiles heheheh

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Socionics, in my view, must be separate from MBTI because it's not fully compatible. Guess I'm more strict on compatibility issues than you are. I mean, I can't think of another reason why some people don't see the problem that I do see.

Oh yeah and that different perspectives idea still doesn't explain all the discrepancies.

Elaborate. (I dare tackle the H.A.* Ni you are possibly about to exude)

Also, the Enneagram was not initially based off of Jung's work, unlike Socionics. It was an independent creation that barely has any specific type correlations due to the amazing discovery that any Jung type can really be any Enneagram type.

*Which also correlates perfectly with the Tertiary function, due to the fact that the Tertiary function does inflate to the size of the ego block functions and can make others who use this functions seem like fools and children to the individual, though I think Socionics's external view of the function shows that the inflation of the Tertiary makes others see the person as overcompensating or trying to play up a weakness.

 

[infinite]

Elaborate. (I dare tackle the H.A.* Ni you are possibly about to exude)

Lol.. well for example, just stick with Si and try to explain all the seeming discrepancies using this idea of perspectives. If you wish to involve the idea of problems with russian society, then note, that's no longer using solely the jungian functions to explain phenomena. It involves a lot of other ideas / theorizing / speculation.

I'll also offer another example, inferior function vs suggestive function.

Also, the Enneagram was not initially based off of Jung's work, unlike Socionics. It was an independent creation that barely has any specific type correlations due to the amazing discovery that any Jung type can really be any Enneagram type.

I know that, however Enneagram targets the human psyche just as much as MBTI or Socionics so it's not totally independent. It does have some correlations, too. Some of them are pretty exclusive too; it's hard to see how an ESTP type 4 or an ESFP type 5 works out. Etc.


Anyway you forgot to tell me how many of those separatist ISTPs have you seen.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Lol.. well for example, just stick with Si and try to explain all the seeming discrepancies using this idea of perspectives. If you wish to involve the idea of problems with russian society, then note, that's no longer using solely the jungian functions to explain phenomena. It involves a lot of other ideas / theorizing / speculation.

I'll also offer another example, inferior function vs suggestive function.




I know that, however Enneagram targets the human psyche just as much as MBTI or Socionics so it's not totally independent. It does have some correlations, too. Some of them are pretty exclusive too; it's hard to see how an ESTP type 4 or an ESFP type 5 works out. Etc.


Anyway you forgot to tell me how many of those separatist ISTPs have you seen.

I've got a running count of 4 separate ISTPs, the only ones I know that have actually looked into the system (you are one of them, jixmixfix, and badger was one as well (sadly), and someone I know from real life).

It's easily explainable even without the problems of the Soviet era with Si, though we use the Soviet Era to explain the bullshit descriptions of Si types being "lazy" or "familiar-oriented". Through JCF, we see that Si is more than what Socionics simply portrays it to be (which evidently is the aforementioned bullshit). Si is the ability to see the power and potential in ones self, ones' own physical and mental limitations, and judge realistic outcomes based on their own assessment of their own intrinsic worth, power, mental and physical attitude, etc. Therefore, the Si type is self-accepting to a point, that point ending when the Si user believes that they are actually capable of anything, such as being perfect as seen with many hard-working SLIs/ISTJs/ISTps. JCF shows us the other features of Si that others don't see (which the aspect that is seen being the "self-acceptance"/"attention to self") such as the nostalgic longing for the way things were, the associative memory through which everything in the present is compared against (something so simple as "I remember a pizza that tasted just like this back when I was younger"). It provides a sense of knowing what one wants out of life, one's direct preferences for things, directly and consciously. There are even several more blades in the swiss army knife that is Si that I cannot even fathom due to the fact that it is my Demonic Personality Complex (8th function, most suppressed).

I'll have to read up more on the Suggestive function, I don't have much data concerning it, but I will get back to you when I have formulated an argument for it and have researched it more thoroughly.

 

[infinite]

[MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION]

I replied here, in the mbti vs socionics thread, because it really belongs there.

 

[jixmixfix]

Mmmm why's that your guess? I have a "type me" thread on here and I got typed ISTP there by several members. I'm interested in your thoughts on this and if it was to get too long for this thread, you can write about it in my type thread instead.

If you're Beta then what type do you think you are ISTJ? you don't remind me of an ISTJ you could very well still be an MBTI ISTP but a socionics ESTP Ti subtype. Since Ti would be your subtype it would be your strongest function in MBTI.

 

[Jaguar]

we have to put our faith in the people who came up with these systems such as Jung and the Lithuanian inventor of Socionics who have a much more valid expertise than us.

No, "we" do not. I think for myself. No one and nothing is above being questioned.

 

[highlander]

A number of posts in this thread have been moved off topic. Please keep the focus of discussion on the thread topic and refrain from pointless bickering. Feel free to take that to PM however.

 

[Riva]

I quickly read the descriptions of the quadras and i must say i disagreed with the esfp description which happens to be in gamma. (?)

 

[Dr Mobius]

[MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION] This is a reply to your posts in general to this thread. Look it’s obvious that you’ve read wikisocion’s Model A backwards and forwards so perhaps you have merely omitted it, but you appear to be missing two important points. Firstly comparing Se and Si is a false dichotomy; Pe is external motivation, Pi is internal motivation, secondly duality is the keystone that socionics rests on everything gets drawn back to it. So when looking for a SLIs external motivation we check for Ne not Si. IXXps portrayals are lazy because they are innately incompetent with external motivations and vice versa with EXXps. That is why ENXps are scattered and undisciplined, and ESXps are volatile and short sighted. Which is to say that it is not because every IXXp they met was lazy, but because every IXXp they met they expected to be lazy.

 

[Zarathustra]

I would just like to point out that, just as my explanation of this whole MBTI-Socionics rift would predict, [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] (who has still not answered my question about the TeSi description I posted and his father) claims that his dad could not possibly be SLI/ISTp because the description is too "Pish" (lazy) and his dad is far more "Jish" (CEO, workaholic), and [MENTION=7278]jixmixfix[/MENTION] claims that he is way too "Pish" to be a LSI/ISTj, and is thus SLI/ISTp.

I repeat, this is *EXACTLY* what my argument says would happen, and here it is laid right out before us.

 

[jixmixfix]

I would just like to point out that, just as my explanation of this whole MBTI-Socionics rift would predict, [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] (who has still not answered my question about the TeSi description I posted and his father) claims that his dad could not possibly be SLI/ISTp because the description is too "Pish" (lazy) and his dad is far more "Jish" (CEO, workaholic), and [MENTION=7278]jixmixfix[/MENTION] claims that he is way too "Pish" to be a LSI/ISTj, and is thus SLI/ISTp.

I repeat, this is *EXACTLY* what my argument says would happen, and here it is laid right out before us.

That's cuz Jaguar's dad is most likely an LSI and jixmixfix is most likely and SLI duh.

 

[Zarathustra]

That's cuz Jaguar's dad is most likely an LSI and jixmixfix is most likely and SLI duh.

You clearly still don't get it.

 

[jixmixfix]

You clearly still don't get it.

I don't get bad logic you're right.