MBTI vs socionics functions

[Zarathustra]

Dr. Seuss books do not count.

Then good thing that's not an issue.

 

[Jaguar]

Then good thing that's not an issue.

Pictures of books =/= books that have actually been read.

 

[Zarathustra]

Pictures of books =/= books that have actually been read.

Nor does it = books that have not been read

Although, considering these are the ones by my bedside, these tend to be ones I'm still reading

The much larger collection is sitting in the other room (and most of those have been read)

 

[Jaguar]

Nor does it = books that have not been read

Although, considering these are the ones by my bedside, these tend to be ones I'm still reading

The much larger collection is sitting in the other room (and most of those have been read)

Thanks for sharing your home decoration choices with me. Now, go read.

 

[Zarathustra]

Now, go read.

I already do.

Now figure out what my actual arguments are.

 

[Jaguar]

I already do.

Now figure out what my actual arguments are.

You don't make arguments. You just troll people and tell them you hope they leave the forum. Or they disgust you, or some other kind of nonsense.

 

[yeghor]

I once decorated my room with books just to impress women too...

Are you two engaged in some kind of mating ritual or something...?

 

[Zarathustra]

You don't make arguments.

Actually, I do.

And you know it.

Nice troll post, though.

You just troll people...

Jag, you and I both know you have received this label far more than me (and almost anybody here).

and tell them you hope they leave the forum. Or they disgust you, or some other kind of nonsense.

The % of my 7000+ posts that say something like this is extremely low.

In fact, I would wager yours is significantly higher.

 

[Jaguar]

Highlander has a lot of posts to chop out of this thread. *swings axe *

 

[yeghor]

 

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, probably starting with post 53

 

[Jaguar]

Starting with this nonsense:

What should NOT change, tho, are what functions the person uses.

 

[Zarathustra]

Nah, probably this:

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.

If for nothing else, for being so obvious, boring, and trite.

 

[Jaguar]

Nah, probably this:
If for nothing else, for being so obvious, boring, and trite.

There's nothing obvious in a book of developmental issues and exceptions. Your post makes little sense. As usual.
Seems you'll do just about anything to keep from reading a book.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

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.

Perhaps the reason why an Ne-Fi would identify with Ne-Fe is due to the fact that in the IEE, Fe is the demonstrative function and therefore subjected to engagement and development in private affairs, even though it is technically "unvalued".

I was wondering earlier if results from tests like keys2cognition would be able to accurately identify someone's type based on their top scoring function (assuming lead) and their second scoring function (assuming either aux/creative or senex/demonstrative). Therefore, [MENTION=15371]RaptorWizard[/MENTION], for instance, who was confused about whether or not he was an ISTP due to his apparent TiNi dom. tert. mechanism would in fact be an INTP/INTj/TiNe, who uses demonstrative Ni often in private (according to Model A) and thus can have a chance to develop it more than say the ignoring function, which is completely shunned usually.

 

[infinite]

Hmm, I saw some posts in the beta quadra thread got moved to off topic, about time, I was going to post any of my further posts on that topic to this mbti/socionics thread. I just forgot to do that earlier.

I'd like to respond to some points though; I'm the thread starter and I don't mind this stuff here as long as it's at least slightly related to the original topic of the compatibility of MBTI and Socionics. If this post still happens to get moved to the closed off topic thread, fine, but I should be given the chance to respond to points just as much as anyone else did (as they were online & had the time to respond before the posts got moved).


[MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION]

Did you really not see his other posts later in the same thread??? Where he explains what he meant. He certainly didn't mean to say anything about my character.

Nah, that was just explaining my annoyed tone. That comment was directed at the fact that I repeated my argument several times and it seemed not to have taken or seemed to have been cast aside without much actual forethought, as well as the fact that your rebuttals ended up with you clinging to Ti and attempting to actually define what Si is according to how it makes sense to you, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but undermines any attempt at reaching an objective understanding. Your rebuttals to my statements didn't seem to actually discredit them in any way, it just seemed to complicate it more.

Just explaining myself here, so there is no confusion.

Now you're being unfair here; you have not tried to verify first if I was really casting everything aside without giving thought to it. No that's not the case. And, I was not "clinging to Ti" when quoting official definitions. I have no desire to define Si according to my understanding. I'm only willing to use official definitions, which do of course differ between the different systems. If anything, that attitude of mine to definitions is rather like MBTI Te, in which I do score high in function tests. I score high both in Ti and Te, equally high (and also in Se equally high). So forget this Ti nonsense, don't try to use it to justify how you see me just because we don't agree about something right away. Learn to handle disagreement. I expect people to handle it and I also expect them to be able to refrain from assuming anything personal about the debate partner, instead respond on topic, to the debate points. If you cannot do that because you got too upset or something, then let's not debate the matter any further. Of course, if you're willing to believe - without the crappy superficial pigeonholing - that I'm actually glad to try and process your points even if it's not shown directly, only through the fact that I actually bother to respond in detail to discussion points (even if I'm disagreeing on some stuff) etc., then I'm still happy to discuss and debate stuff with you

(In this latter case, I would like to hear why you think my rebuttals were too weak to refute any of your points. E.g, what was just complicating stuff in your opinion?)

Another note I want to say, I suggest you don't try to deeply analyse people just based on the four letters you see in their profile or based on what type you've assigned to them; the four letters involve heavy information loss and you just can't make such conclusions about ways of thinking without further data (conclusions like when you said I was clinging to Ti).

Anyway, I'm glad you confirmed that you didn't mean to say anything about my character, even though [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] claimed that.


[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]

I see you are still being evasive. You're hopelessly closed-minded on this issue. So I'm not interested any further in getting you to elaborate on your actual thoughts instead of trolling about my personal character. And it's not your business where I may be on the Asperger scale. If you wish to keep trolling, feel free to do so to your heart's content, don't stop just because you think I might have a disorder. I'm saying that because I simply don't care about your bullshitting. I only care about discussing and/or debating matters of psychology. End of story.

 

[Zarathustra]

There's nothing obvious in a book of developmental issues and exceptions.

What you said was extremely obvious.

Your post makes little sense. As usual.

I know my posts don't make sense to you, Jag.

But I'm sorry, I can't help you up the mental horsepower.

They do actually make sense to other intelligent people on here.

Seems you'll do just about anything to keep from reading a book.

Wrong again.

I'm reading ~10-15 different books right now.

Come on vent some time, and we can chat about my current reading list.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Hmm, I saw some posts got moved to off topic, about time, I was going to post any of my further posts on that topic to this mbti/socionics thread. I just forgot to do that earlier.

I'd like to respond to some points though; I'm the thread starter and I don't mind this stuff here as long as it's at least slightly related to the original topic of the compatibility of MBTI and Socionics. If this post still happens to get moved to the closed off topic thread, fine, but I should be given the chance to respond to points just as much as anyone else did (as they were online & had the time to respond before the posts got moved).


[MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION]





Now you're being unfair here; you have not tried to verify first if I was really casting everything aside without giving thought to it. No that's not the case. And, I was not "clinging to Ti" when quoting official definitions. I have no desire to define Si according to my understanding. I'm only willing to use official definitions, which do of course differ between the different systems. If anything, that attitude of mine to definitions is rather like MBTI Te, which I do score high on in function tests. I score high both in Ti and Te, equally high (and also in Se equally high). So forget this Ti nonsense, don't try to use it to justify how you see me just because we don't agree about something right away. Learn to handle disagreement. I expect people to handle it and I also expect them to be able to refrain from assuming anything personal about the debate partner, instead respond on topic, to the debate points. If you cannot do that because you got too upset or something, then let's not debate the matter any further.

I was being entirely fair, I was stating my direct opinion of the situation and not drawing a huge deal out of it but simply clarifying what you and [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] were trying to wail on each other with. Also, you did cling to Ti at the end of the debate, as you began to define Si according to your own perspective, I'm not saying that to discredit you, I'm saying that because it happened. Also, I didn't attack your character whatsoever, I analyzed your thinking.

Also, the deep analysis was a product of me trying to figure out your thinking in your argument and your own perspective rather than simply reading your information in my own perspective, as that would be unfair on your part for I would not have the reference frame. Also, the "you can't just make conclusions about ways of thinking without further data" is (and I'm doing this just for the ironic amusement) you clinging to Se (focus on specific data and the amalgamation of data to ensure that the conclusion is perfectly accounted for with evidence) and bashing Ni, which does, in fact, make conclusions with little data and often turns about to be correct, as I have done with this.

I would prefer that this or the next statement be the concessions to this debate, as I do not want to get in the slap-fest (though while incredibly fun to watch) with you and [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION].

 

[Jaguar]

Perhaps the reason why an Ne-Fi would identify with Ne-Fe is due to the fact that in the IEE, Fe is the demonstrative function and therefore subjected to engagement and development in private affairs, even though it is technically "unvalued".

I wasn't referring to Socionics in my post.

Actually, Myers pointed out that external influences play a dramatic role. A kid can have his/her preferences, but if they are not supported within the family, or extenuating circumstances are present, extra focus on the outer world versus the inner world can occur. Or vice versa. Take an example where a kid is raised in an alcoholic home. There could easily be a demand for the kid to turn from inner values to outer values to keep the peace as well as be forced to engage in care-taking that may not have come naturally to them, otherwise. No unusual combination would surprise me in that situation. Furthermore, just because a combination may deviate from what one may expect does not make one unhealthy. There's been a lot of that kind of talk in this forum over the years and it makes little sense. Different =/= unhealthy. I don't really subscribe to the idea of rigid structures or ordering of function-attitudes. I'm well aware of the models and how they operate, but it doesn't mean I have to salute them or strictly abide by every little nuance.

I was wondering earlier if results from tests like keys2cognition would be able to accurately identify someone's type based on their top scoring function (assuming lead) and their second scoring function (assuming either aux/creative or senex/demonstrative). Therefore, [MENTION=15371]RaptorWizard[/MENTION], for instance, who was confused about whether or not he was an ISTP due to his apparent TiNi dom. tert. mechanism would in fact be an INTP/INTj/TiNe, who uses demonstrative Ni often in private (according to Model A) and thus can have a chance to develop it more than say the ignoring function, which is completely shunned usually.

The tertiary is food for another thread. People keep forgetting that the attitude of the tertiary has been up for grabs for decades. That means someone can be:

E
I
I
I

I
E
E
E

There are no absolutes regarding the tertiary. Some have theorized that the tertiary is so flexible that one can "toggle" it at will. Again, be open to possibilities.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I wasn't referring to Socionics in my post.

Actually, Myers pointed out that external influences play a dramatic role. A kid can have his/her preferences, but if they are not supported within the family, or extenuating circumstances are present, extra focus on the outer world versus the inner world can occur. Take an example where a kid is raised in an alcoholic home. There could easily be a demand for the kid to turn from inner values to outer values to keep the peace. No unusual combination would surprise me in that situation. Furthermore, just because a combination may deviate from what one may expect does not make one unhealthy. There's been a lot of that kind of talk in this forum over the years and it makes little sense. Different =/= unhealthy. I don't really subscribe to the idea of rigid structures or ordering of function-attitudes. I'm well aware of the models and how they operate, but it doesn't mean I have to salute them or strictly abide by every little nuance.



The tertiary is food for another thread. People keep forgetting that the attitude of the tertiary has been up for grabs for decades. That means someone can be:

E
I
I
I

I
E
E
E

There are no absolutes regarding the tertiary. Some have theorized that the tertiary is so flexible that one can "toggle" it at will. Again, be open to possibilities.

Interesting. I've actually heard several theories about the tertiary actually being entirely ambiverted, with types like the ENTP being Ne - Ti - F - Si (feeling in general). I think the actual reason it is kept this way is due to the fact that everyone supposedly must have a definite Pi, Pe, Je, and Ji function in their first four functions, which might not entirely be the case, but is generally considered to be true in the common realm of JCF. Though I still think that the perspective shift you describe from internal to external values or vice versa might actually be the decision to abandon the creative function (sorry for transition to Socionics, but it reiterates my initial argument) in favor of the demonstrative function. Of course, this is all speculation without any empirical evidence.