G
Thank you.
Therefore, it is not difficult to see that the ISFP/ISFj/ESI, who isn't an irrational Se dominant, as a type 9 would theoretically possess the "conquest" element of Se but not know where to purpose it due to the lack of identity/purpose characteristic of 9s, meaning that they would seem less like the over-dramatized "conquesting" nature of Se portrayed in Socionics and more oriented toward dominant-tertiary mechanics (possibly leading to a higher chance for being engaged in an Fi-Ni loop).
I would say all of this is incredibly true for me.
Wow.
Yes.
This is exactly the kind of thinking necessary to properly comprehend this Socionics-MBTI issue.
It also would help explain why, amongst other reasons, senza would seem to have significantly better Ni usage than most SPs.
Also, [MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION]: I have seen the same issue you mention about ISTPs demanding they be separate systems.
An interesting question, then, is why [MENTION=10984]Azure Flame[/MENTION] (as a presumed SLE/ESTp/ESTP) does not.
An INTJ who stopped by here once referred to Bayesian vs Frequentist thinking.
IIRC, he compared Bayesian to INTJ and Frequentist to INTP thinking.
IIRC, Bayesian wants to run one model that most accurately describes reality.
Frequentist, on the other hand, wants to run multiple parallel models.
It was a while ago, so that could be a little bit off (and names switched).
Anyway, not that this explains everything, but there could be overlap between INTP and ISTP thinking, in this regard.
I would think the ISTPs' Se might change that equation, but it seems their Se actually worsens their issue in this Socionics-MBTI matter.
It seems they look at things so statically, they read the descriptions and only see qualitative differences on the surface, and thus determine "these two things are different".
Better development of Ni would cause them to look for the deeper truth, the real function both descriptions are trying to point to.
Each system's description would only be its view point of the same object, much like [MENTION=8031]Ginkgo[/MENTION]'s image above.
Ni beckons us to find the synthesis between them (among all of the various descriptions, really).
It's what we do: we metaperspectivize.
From Ni's metaperspectivizing vantage point, each description looks like just one party's perspective on the same thing.
It's probably part of the reason why INTJs are the most likely of the introverts to (correctly) identify as ILI/INTp/INTJ.
And also part of the reason why Ni-suppressing ISTPs reject the notion that the two systems are compatible.
[MENTION=13147]senza tema[/MENTION]
Which one do you relate to more?
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=SEI_male_and_female
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ESI_male_and_female
I don't know if there's any difference in function descriptions... But if any, they may be stemming from the fact that we can use both sides of the function interchangeably alas weakly... i.e. a Ni-dom can still use Ne and vice versa... so any discrepancy may perhaps be due to that...
Then something's must be off cause I relate more to
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=EII_male_and_female
It gives Dostoevski as an example...
What should NOT change, tho, are what functions the person uses.
A publication by Katharine D. Myers exists that goes in-depth with numerous possibilities of how, and why, people don't necessarily develop along a fixed path, and may end up with Ne-Fe, rather than Ne-Fi, for example.
They're called ENTPs.
Wrong. Again.
People use all four functions. Yes, boys and girls, there are four functions that everyone can use in differing degrees depending on the person. What a revelation. Who knew?
A publication by Katharine D. Myers exists that goes in-depth with numerous possibilities of how, and why, people don't necessarily develop along a fixed path, and may end up with Ne-Fe, rather than Ne-Fi, for example. Nothing is carved in stone. Exceptions to "rules" shouldn't come as a surprise.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Type-Dynamics-Myers-Katherine/dp/1856390772/ref=tmm_pap_title_0
That link was posted for people who actually read.
I already do.