MBTI vs socionics functions

[yeghor]

...Yeah, demonstrate.

This is INFp from wikiscion... Red parts are the ones that don't fit with MBTI INFJ...

Male portrait

The young male IEI is usually charming and pleasant in appearance. His essence is poetic. His initially melancholy gaze though soon becomes sly and playful. An endearing smile lights up his lips. The pensive, bowed head, in some cases long hair down to the shoulders, black sweater and jeans make up the image of modern-day male IEIs, however, discussion on style is usually not within the circle of their interests. As children and adolescents male IEIs are characteristically slender and graceful, though they can grow more heavy with age.

In younger years, he is timid and amiable, goofy and whimsical, flighty and adventurous. He sensitively deals with his own emotions and your own, so that you find yourself at times laughing out loud at his ridiculous jokes, and at other times fall into grief together with him.

He is sufficiently sociable, readily initiates contact and talks to people, but generally does not strive to ascend to the top of the social ladder, preferring instead to remain out of the limelight. He rarely takes initiative, and more often than not will wait until the right moment arises. He may quietly stand alone, aloof and away from the group, until he is noticed. If this occurs, he begins to make light conversation, displaying attentiveness, smiling, and throwing in light jokes once in a while. One of his distinctive traits is that you can direct him to move to the right or to the left. He does not resist volitional force, unless it is too rough.

Frequently, youths of this type write reasonably good verses (usually poetry about nature and love), or he will read you the poetry of his favorite authors, desiring to make an impression and predispose you to him.

The boy of this type usually does quite well in school, if his upbringing has been good and parents guided him with a strong hand. If this is the case, such boys make decent marks and are well-behaved. Otherwise, the complete opposite may be be true!

They are very quick, mobile, and will literally fly in movement, devise different games, harmless diversions, and drawings. They dislike bad luck and simply want to have fun. If a boy of this type enjoys sport, he usually prefers those in which fast response and speed is necessary.

In school, humanitarian subjects are recommended for him. With the right diligence he can completely master mathematics and physics, but more often literature, languages, and arts attract attention of this type of youth. Frequently the male IEI is drawn to theater and poetry clubs, where he can engage in unlimited self-expression, finding use to the rich range of his emotions.

Although male IEI is more inclined to solitude, he nevertheless loves to spend time in company of others. He has a small circle of friends, but knows how to rapidly strike temporary friendships even with unfamiliar people and then entire evening treat them as friends.

When all around him familiar and unfamiliar people gather to spend time together, his mood rises. While in this good mood and involved in the moment, he will joke and cheer and entertain everyone from his very soul, for he is not lacking in charm and is overflowing with positive emotion. But this is not a loud youth, so that if company gathers too numerous and very noisy, he can remain in the background unnoticed.

Male IEI is amiable, charming, non-aggressive and resourceful, so that he is often quite attractive to the opposite gender. He is easily conquered because he is compliant and indecisive, so if girl acts very energetically and persistently he will yield to her.

However, it is necessary to consider that at first the male IEI can yield and being absorbed in the moment and the current mood even propose to marry you tomorrow. But just as easily as he asks this today, tomorrow he can change his mind. If he has changed his mind, he will have enough obstinacy and perseverance to escape from his promises. Young male IEIs are very careful and try to avoid arranged traps. Moreover they have the talent to foresee the course of events, which helps them to protect themselves from unnecessary encroachments.

If you married a male IEI, take the responsibility for making the major decisions for both of you, such as decisions about large purchases, repairs, change of apartments, and other serious everyday matters. You will have a thoughtful, tender husband, who never will refuse to help you in all your undertakings. Well, in almost all, since it is extremely difficult to draw them to repair things and to other critical matters.

An example from life: "I have been trying to persuade my IEI husband to purchase new furniture for the kitchen for a while now. When money appeared, I proposed we depart on Saturday in the morning, go to the store and buy the furniture which I liked. On Saturday morning he arose in bad spirits, and as soon as I said that it is time to go, he started to nervously pace across the room and then asked: "So we just go and spend all this money immediately?! Do you think all this furniture is really necessary? Why are we making this decision so hastily? We should discuss and re-calculate everything again. What's the hurry?" Seeing how he has become very anxious, I proposed that we put off the purchase. Two weekends we have spent discussing this step. On Sunday evening he was in the state of complete prostration. Monday he stayed entire day at work and apparently was distracted and calmed down. After work we met up, went to the store and purchased new kitchen furniture ".

Your IEI husband will hold absolute leadership in the family for the maintenance of emotional climate. When in good spirits, he will warms up relatives and friends with his playful jokes. He knows how to cheer up and to inspire people. He adores lotteries, loves to fool about and laugh, he know how to enjoy life and will even sing about it. Wife and children next to him will feel as one family. Warmth, faithfulness, devotion will always be valued very highly.

The style of life in family of IEI male is distinctive. Here you will often find yourself traveling to new, unknown places. As soon as the desire appears (and the desire to travel somewhere appears in him fairly often), your family will be lifted and moved from the place without many preliminary preparations. Under the management of this untiring traveler your family will visit such places of which some have never heard about. Moreover he loves not only to explore, but also to tell about the historical past of places he has visited. He is very attentive to the distinctions in styles of different epochs, can examine architectural styles, easily gets fascinated by history. Such trips bring joy into the family and contribute to the spirit of constant novelty and renovation.

It is necessary to say that IEI loves not only travel, but also simple excursions, to just walk around and wander. Therefore it can happen that on Sunday you send him to purchase some bread in the morning, and he will return only in the evening. In this case you must know that he simply went wandering around surrounding streets and strayed sufficiently far, this is why this happened. His oversights and errors IEI thoroughly hides. Do not hope that he will directly tell the truth to you. Most likely, he will resort to cunning, build up an image of mysteriousness and importance, and with the most serious demeanor he will try to fool you.

He can tell elaborate, stunning histories that are removed from how events have really transpired, because he possesses flexible imagination the remarkable ability to tell about most gripping and improbable subjects - this is true talent. Probably for this reason, IEI male loves to drive others into the state of light stupefaction. He is entertained by this. This also serves to protect him. Indeed if his behavior is wrapped by the halo of fog and mysteriousness, then others not will nothing know about him accurately, and, therefore, they will not be able to use this knowledge against him.

However, the main inconvenience in the contact with IEI lies in the fact that he will frequently attempt to put a brake on your initiatives, foretelling with melancholy that your undertakings will not meet success.

Male IEIs make outstanding journalists, since the writer talent is often inherent to them and they can easily express their thoughts. Frequently they find themselves as artists, stylists, modellers, artists and singers. They love to photograph or make movies, which sometimes also becomes their profession. With the overall interest in the history, they also can dedicate themselves to its study or teaching.

IEI as no other loves that the work would bring him happiness, and for this it must be diverse. He always attempts to avoid boredom and routine. With great pleasure he departs on trips, meets with new people. Least of all he likes monotony of the daily work, in which there is no place for creative undertakings. He hopes for something new, for a constant change of impressions.

 

[yeghor]

This is the INFj one... Blue parts fit with INFJ...

Male portrait

Young male INFj is modest, tactful, and delicate, an avid reader and generally an intellectual. Most frequently he has a slender build. He has a quiet voice, gentle gaze, affectionate smile and an elaborate system of thoughts. Often men of this type have long hair, and sometimes tie it in a tail. He does not give clothing adequate consideration, considering that this is not the main point of life. He is dressed, as a rule, very modestly. Nevertheless, rare men of this type can be dandies, devoting a lot of time and money to their appearance.

When you speak to male INFj it seems like the conscience itself is staring into your eyes. He has a gift for understanding people. He is sympathetic, capable of feeling for other's misfortunes as if they are his own, and of comforting them after sharing in their low moods. One can trust him, as he will never go against the interests of people who are close to him.

In school, boys of this type usually are inconspicuous and quiet. They are friendly with other children in the class and always ready to empathize with any student, be they friend or just a classmate. But they are not arrogant - they do not participate in fights and do not compete for leadership. They know how to find common language practically with any children. Boys of this type learn well and can display interest in technical subjects. Nevertheless they are usually more interested in relationships and are greatly occupied by the personal life of classmates, which they often quietly observe from the side, and idealistically think about them, about everything that occurs. Their experiences they then describe in verses or prose, to which they regularly devote some time.

In choosing college and major, they show an inclination towards humanitarian sciences: (did not but should've)

From real life: "We had class with him (DOSTOYEVSKY) in the philological department. He preferred to sit at the back of the classroom, but not to talk and fool around or copy homework from others. Fussing wasn't in his style. Instead of taking notes he was frequently finishing up writing his poems, reading Remarque under the desk, doodling and sketching clouds. Sometimes he would suddenly awaken and ask of the instructor completely appropriate questions. I do not remember him ever answering inopportunely, when he was called to the board. He always found what to answer. However, his studious activity did not last for more than five minutes. He also never had sufficient patience to learn all material for examination.

Light carelessness and quiet cheerfulness describe his style of contact well. Words- parasites were not in his lexicon. He did not tell common anecdotes and did not cite Fomenko (Russian comedian).

I once had an opportunity to be let into his inner world. I realized that beneath his external lightheartedness he had a tendency toward strict self-criticism. In private he could blame himself for hours because of his idleness or regret an incorrectly said word ".

Among the representatives of this type we can encounter such heroes who get accepted to The Baumanskiy Institute (second hardest university to get into in Russia, akin to Yale) and even graduate with high honors.

Sports, especially in childhood, usually do not interest boys of this type. Although, having grown up and obtained a more muscular body, they can be drawn to yoga, martial arts, cross-country skiing, and other types of sports, which require speed and fast reaction time. They make an exception of sports that require application of force, where aggressiveness is the main factor, where one needs to fight and collide with opponents.

In spite of his quiet nature and tendency for secluded existence, young INFj male loves people, and with pleasure meets and spends time with them. Boys of this type can also be found in groups of friends, but even there they prefer to associate face to face, turn by turn with everyone who sparks an interest in them or to whom they become attached. Male INFj's character is often soft and reasonable, thus he is usually very responsive to initiative shown by the opposite sex. He behaves as a gallant cavalier; he jokes and tries to uphold soft, non-obliging merriment. By the way, a representative of this type is often witty and ingenious, so can be seen by ladies as a very interesting partner. Concerning him particularly, he is most of all pleased by the serious, decisive, reasonable girls, who always know what they want and who can also advise what needs to be done in different situations.

Youths of this type make for gentle husbands. They are thoughtful and friendly; there is little to none aggressiveness in them. And still they know how to maintain in the household an atmosphere supplemented by soft humor. However, one should know that, being reasonable and gentle, INFj male is also extremely persistent in his nature and is capable of quietly, but persistently following his own rules. He can argue with you, but won't do it, and at the same time he won't step back from his principles. Nevertheless, he is usually non-combative and tries to avoid open confrontations. To him it is more simple to joke back, to transfer the quarrel into the humorous course, especially since he is usually so good with this.

Male INFjs use the same tactic around children. He is a benevolent friend and educator, sufficiently pedantic, but is humane. He will not only help with studying, but also teach how to respectfully relate to others, at the same time not conceding on one's high goals or losing one's spiritual orientation in life. Men of this type are strongly tied to their children, and if he leaves the house for a long time he will miss them. (Don't know yet)

In dealing with relatives, INFj men are extremely patient. However, if you nevertheless managed to offend him, then his gentle demeanor and full of melancholy, lowered eyes, cannot but evoke the proper impression in you. There is little doubt that at this moment you more than anything in this world will want to fall through the earth, and you will feel very apologetic about your wrongful actions or words.

Since people of INFj type love and know how to live according to a plan, they make for outstanding and very reliable workers. They are punctual, sufficiently thorough in their work, and very responsible. Men of this type have a bleeding heart for the common cause. Their abilities find use in a variety of fields, from the humanitarian sphere to the technical occupations. Frequently they work as teachers in schools, professors or lectures in colleges, editors, journalists. One can encounter among the people of this type those, who professionally work in chemistry. They can also work as engineers or designers. They are often successful in role of a psychologist.

Their qualities make possible it for them to fill special niche in groups. Colleagues usually love and respect them for their tolerance, their readiness to listen and to understand everybody, as well as for their responsive and acquiescent nature.

 

[LittleV]

+1 to most of this Really well put.

(We don't agree that there's exactly 8 functions but the rest we totally do agree about.)

What is your opinion about what the non-trait based version of functions is?

Jung's theory has 'traits' embedded... so they could all be used concurrently if clearly parsed out. To do these separately would mean to use cognitive science before integrating anything else... exhibiting that there are distinctive pathways to absorb information, make judgments, etc. I don't think that there are necessarily/solely eight functions, but rather... I believe that the 'functions' are dynamic, and describing how we'd passively/actively respond to perceived/actual environmental stimuli to varying degrees.

 

[Jaguar]

I had to wait a long time, to see your sarcasm and you cracking a smile. Yes I'm having fun NOW.

Now I know who you are. I had to go do some detective work.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I'm sure SolitaryWalker and many other INTPs will be thrilled to know they use Se simply because they demand evidence as critical thinkers. /sarcasm

If you have to resort to going after who you're responding to by bringing up their type or function-attitudes, you show a weakness in your argument. One of my oldest pals in the forum is an INTJ. I assure you, he never lifted up his middle finger at evidence, and he and I were of the same opinion that making lame generalizations is a sign of sloppy thinking. People don't get a free pass based on type: "Ni, which does, in fact, make conclusions with little data and often turns about to be correct." First of all, you can't prove any such claim or do you personally know 51% of the world's Ni Dom population? (That question was rhetorical.) Not only do you not know 51%, you can't even prove a person is Ni dom. You included. The MBTI is a self-reporting instrument which makes it unreliable and pointing a finger and shouting "See, that's Ni!" at a person's post won't cut the mustard, either.

If you want to make a claim, back it up with evidence.

And if you think only one MBTI type would say that, there are thousands of posts in this forum that will show you otherwise. Use the advanced search function in this forum and start reading.

That said, your claim that someone is "clinging" to Ti and defining "clinging" as "beginning to define Si according to your own perspective" means a hell of a lot of people use Ti, (including me) and many authors of type books. The definitions vary from source to source, test question to test question, person to person, and so on. Again, there are thousands of posts in this forum with people putting their own spin on things, according to their own perspective and it's not about Ti.

On page 22 of An Introduction To The Personailty Type Code written by Dario Nardi (INTJ) and Linda Berens (INTP) an excerpt from the Ti section of the ISTP profile reads:

They are skilled at stepping back, staying objective, and not over-reacting.

So, who shall we call bullshit on now? Berens, Nardi, ISTPs, INTPs, INTJs, you, me, who? Are you getting the picture yet? Many people complain that Ti is too subjective, but the function-attitudes do not operate in a vacuum. Ti-Se and Ti-Ne will not operate the same way. It doesn't matter if it's Socionics, the MBTI, Jung, Freud, or even the Enneagram. There are different definitions and descriptions from source to source and one better be flexible if they want to discuss type models. Many people have changed their minds about their own type upon reading different publications for the very reasons I have mentioned.

What I actually find amusing is that what you claim is Se, was what an ENTP member claimed was Te for many years. He called it "shit Te."

As for Socionics and the MBTI, the reason I brought up the tertiary function elsewhere in this thread was not just for the hell of it. Socionics is not flexible in its structure; it does not account for tertiary function-attitude flexibility. It's set up in blocks. One would have to bust open the framework and change the fundamental structure to accommodate that level of flexibility.

Btw, without mentioning names, there are two people who claim to be MBTI INTJs in this forum.
Of the two MBTI INTJs, using Socionics , one claims to be LII, the other claims to be ILI.

The discrepancies in how some INTJs type themselves using Socionics is nothing new. Some INTJs have even typed themselves as Ti-Se using Socionics. And that is their choice.
There is no correct answer using self-reporting instruments, it's up to the person to decide what fits them best. You'd think that would be obvious, but after all these years, some still seem to think they have a right to make decisions for other people regarding their type whether it's the MBTI, Socionics, or even the Enneagram.

Whoa, calm down. I was using an analysis of the functions I saw present in what infinity was using (which I now realize is probably wrong to use them to describe what I was seeing, as they are not solid foundations in the first place). I was not attacking specific functions such as Ti users in general or Se users at all, I was simply trying to get infinity to see that his counter-argument to my initial argument did not actually strike it down in any way but instead complicated the situation to a degree that was unnecessary. He was defining Si based off of his own understanding as if it somehow weakened my initial argument, and it didn't really.

I also began several of my statements with "this is all speculation, there is no empirical evidence".

Also, what you have appeared to have interpreted as an attack on Ti-users was a detail poised solely on the individual use of Ti at the time by infinity. He was rejecting information that I was providing him with not with an actual counter-argument but with more complicating excess (as aforementioned), "clinging" (I should have probably used a less negatively connotative word there) to his judging perspective, attempting to assure that the information being provided to him lined up with what he already believed to be true, which would be perfectly fine so long as the counter-argument posed actually countered the information provided.

ISTPs are notorious for being wholly objective, due to the fact they stay with their logical principles and judge outside elements and information for their veracity according to said principles, which are usually logically true and efficiently applicable. Though, in this particular instance (the individual) Ti was acting "objectively" according to a conclusion already determined internally prior to the reception of new information that could prove otherwise. Remember I was analyzing an individual, not a group.

Amusingly, it might actually be an easier comparison to think of Se as "shit Te", those two functions are often intertwined and confused for each other anyhow. This of course, is speculation, as I'm sure the ENTP was speculating as well.

Now with your Socionics point, I must yield, as it is indeed a structured block, and if it so happens that the tertiary function is ambiverted, then the entire system would be flawed, though I do believe there are some truths to the vulnerable functions of several types. In which case the tertiary function is proven to be ambiverted, then the two systems are doomed to never unify unless one breaks itself.

It is, in fact, the choice of the individual, and I did not decide a type for anyone, infinity himself opened up several type-me forums where people and myself included suggested that he was a Ti dominant or auxiliary. I too think it is best for the individual to find their own type, but when they are given the wrong tools and the wrong definitions it will surely be an arduous task. It is best to hand them the right tools and allow them to work them themselves, or for them to actually subject themselves as infinity did to the public opinion to ones' own type, which decreases the veracity of his true psychological type by perhaps a little due to the fact that we do not actually know him in person, and we sure as hell don't know what's going on inside his head.

 

[infinite]

If you used it, what is your subtype?

Mine is INTp-Te

...Btw why were you asking about my subtype?

This is INFp from wikiscion... Red parts are the ones that don't fit with MBTI INFJ...

I was asking about you specifically, not generic MBTI INFJ. Or when you said "MBTI INFJ" here, were you referring to yourself?

Jung's theory has 'traits' embedded... so they could all be used concurrently if clearly parsed out. To do these separately would mean to use cognitive science before integrating anything else... exhibiting that there are distinctive pathways to absorb information, make judgments, etc. I don't think that there are necessarily/solely eight functions, but rather... I believe that the 'functions' are dynamic, and describing how we'd passively/actively respond to perceived/actual environmental stimuli to varying degrees.

We are agreeing on way too much stuff, it's boring Heheheh.

Whoa, calm down. I was using an analysis of the functions I saw present in what infinity was using (which I now realize is probably wrong to use them to describe what I was seeing, as they are not solid foundations in the first place). I was not attacking specific functions such as Ti users in general or Se users at all, I was simply trying to get infinity to see that his counter-argument to my initial argument did not actually strike it down in any way but instead complicated the situation to a degree that was unnecessary. He was defining Si based off of his own understanding as if it somehow weakened my initial argument, and it didn't really.

I assume you just didn't yet have time to reply to my post where I address this claim of yours. But just in case you didn't notice, here's the post, and I still would really like to hear where exactly you think I was defining Si for myself, deviating from official theory. Because, I repeat, I wasn't doing that.

Also, what you have appeared to have interpreted as an attack on Ti-users was a detail poised solely on the individual use of Ti at the time by infinity. He was rejecting information that I was providing him with not with an actual counter-argument but with more complicating excess (as aforementioned), "clinging" (I should have probably used a less negatively connotative word there) to his judging perspective, attempting to assure that the information being provided to him lined up with what he already believed to be true, which would be perfectly fine so long as the counter-argument posed actually countered the information provided.

And this, no... this is your speculative analysis about my thinking processes. How I work is more like this: I process new information, see how it fits or doesn't fit, if it doesn't fit, I will express my opinion about why it doesn't, but I remain open to hearing more information and good strong arguments. I will process all that again and the conclusion is not pre-determined. Things can change if there's a reason for them to change. So the word usage "assure" isn't really the best choice for my thinking process.

ISTPs are notorious for being wholly objective, due to the fact they stay with their logical principles and judge outside elements and information for their veracity according to said principles, which are usually logically true and efficiently applicable. Though, in this particular instance (the individual) Ti was acting "objectively" according to a conclusion already determined internally prior to the reception of new information that could prove otherwise. Remember I was analyzing an individual, not a group.

Again, no... see above. New information can always prove otherwise but it has to actually prove otherwise. It's true it has to wholly make sense first but this is not the same thing as just outright rejecting everything that doesn't seem to fit, without processing it.

Amusingly, it might actually be an easier comparison to think of Se as "shit Te", those two functions are often intertwined and confused for each other anyhow.

Naaaaah I take issue with that Te is the shit Se!

Seriously though, I do score equally high in both which I find interesting... they're definitely not the same thing though.

Now with your Socionics point, I must yield, as it is indeed a structured block, and if it so happens that the tertiary function is ambiverted, then the entire system would be flawed, though I do believe there are some truths to the vulnerable functions of several types. In which case the tertiary function is proven to be ambiverted, then the two systems are doomed to never unify unless one breaks itself.

Ah yeah, Jaguar put that very well.

It is, in fact, the choice of the individual, and I did not decide a type for anyone, infinity himself opened up several type-me forums where people and myself included suggested that he was a Ti dominant or auxiliary. I too think it is best for the individual to find their own type, but when they are given the wrong tools and the wrong definitions it will surely be an arduous task. It is best to hand them the right tools and allow them to work them themselves, or for them to actually subject themselves as infinity did to the public opinion to ones' own type, which decreases the veracity of his true psychological type by perhaps a little due to the fact that we do not actually know him in person, and we sure as hell don't know what's going on inside his head.

Well I hope you don't actually think that my opinion is only determined by what others think about my type. Though of course it's very helpful to hear the analyses by people here. Anyway, I'm glad to explain more about how my thought processes work if that helps with anything.

Oh and, as for the bolded, it's HER, not his .

 

[Jaguar]

Whoa, calm down.

Are you female?

I was using an analysis of the functions I saw present in what infinity was using

Problem #1 .

He was defining Si based off of his own understanding as if it somehow weakened my initial argument, and it didn't really.

You have my argumentitis. What happened to understanding the models and how they work, rather than this "my argument" nonsense all the time? It makes you sound like you're 12. Are you here to "win" something, or gain understanding of something?

I also began several of my statements with "this is all speculation, there is no empirical evidence".

Which didn't cool your jets at all when it came to complaining about those who ask for evidence to back up claims. Make up your mind.

Also, what you have appeared to have interpreted as an attack on Ti-users was a detail poised solely on the individual use of Ti at the time by infinity.

Problem #1 , again. Look, this isn't about Infinity, per se. It's not even about you, per se. It's about anyone in this forum who has a weak argument and proceeds to go after the FA's (function-attitudes) of the person they are conversing with. It's ridiculous. Not to mention, boring as hell.

He was rejecting information that I was providing him

As if I didn't know that's your achilles heel. It's blinking like a neon sign.
Look, I made my point and I'll make it again - if you (or anyone else) have to go after a member's FA's, your argument is lame. No doubt, it just plain stinks. I'd say that to anyone. And if Infinity was posting his own understanding of Si, so what?

Now with your Socionics point, I must yield, as it is indeed a structured block, and if it so happens that the tertiary function is ambiverted, then the entire system would be flawed, though I do believe there are some truths to the vulnerable functions of several types. In which case the tertiary function is proven to be ambiverted, then the two systems are doomed to never unify unless one breaks itself.

Yes, it would be flawed. It's also another reason why I think the two models have no business being united, but I think you already see that.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Are you female?



Problem #1 .



You have my argumentitis. What happened to understanding the models and how they work, rather than this "my argument" nonsense all the time? It makes you sound like you're 12. Are you here to "win" something, or gain understanding of something?



Which didn't cool your jets at all when it came to complaining about those who ask for evidence to back up claims. Make up your mind.



Problem #1 , again. Look, this isn't about Infinity, per se. It's not even about you, per se. It's about anyone in this forum who has a weak argument and proceeds to go after the FA's (function-attitudes) of the person they are conversing with. It's ridiculous. Not to mention, boring as hell.



As if I didn't know that's your achilles heel. It's blinking like a neon sign.
Look, I made my point and I'll make it again - if you (or anyone else) have to go after a member's FA's, your argument is lame. No doubt, it just plain stinks. I'd say that to anyone. And if Infinity was posting his own understanding of Si, so what?




Yes, it would be flawed. It's also another reason why I think the two models have no business being united, but I think you already see that.

I am not female.

I was using the phrase 'initial arguments' to be interpreted the same way as initial statements. As in my assertion that the two models are perhaps not so contradicting after all and in some cases possibly complementary.

Obviously due to the nature of the initial discussion, it is practically impossible to provide any sort of evidence unless each individual in perhaps the entire world was documented and tested; therefore, the discussion was based on speculation in the first place, and the evidence provided was the theoretical implications and interrelations between the two systems. However, the credibility in that evidence is also speculation, so the argument itself arises at an impasse upon which one must either adhere to the belief that they are or are not, and essentially from there it becomes akin to controversial arguments that are improvable due to a lack of tangible data and are merely ideological disputes at that point, such as various religious versus anti-religious debates that cycle around the modern world today. If we had empirical evidence, then the entire problem would be resolved in the first place, but until then it is up to individuals to speculate and to counter others' speculations.

I will yield to you once again and say that it was a mistake on my part to rely on function analysis. Though, infinity's own understanding of Si might not reflect how Si might actually manifest in the real world (see [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]'s wonderful post in the IM element thread); again, we lack evidence.

Due to the fact that it is seemingly improbable at this state to determine whether or not the two models can actually be united, you are welcome to believing that the two models should not be united, but in the case that you were to question my own belief that they can be united, we would see the same argument as the one me and infinity held, where it is a game of reasoning (on both sides) rather than a game of evidence.

 

[LittleV]

We are agreeing on way too much stuff, it's boring Heheheh.

Hahah... in Se-fashion

Although... I am anything but boring in real life. Fe (aux-somewhat) feels responsible for others' enjoyment/entertainment...

 

[infinite]

Hahah... in Se-fashion

Although... I am anything but boring in real life. Fe (aux-somewhat) feels responsible for others' enjoyment/entertainment...

Cool

As in my assertion that the two models are perhaps not so contradicting after all and in some cases possibly complementary.

In some cases, of course. To clarify; apparently we are just on different points on the scale going from "totally different and incompatible" to "totally the same and compatible". You're closer to the latter end of the scale with your opinion than me.

Obviously due to the nature of the initial discussion, it is practically impossible to provide any sort of evidence unless each individual in perhaps the entire world was documented and tested; therefore, the discussion was based on speculation in the first place, and the evidence provided was the theoretical implications and interrelations between the two systems.

I actually tried to check the theories against my own observations. That's not the same kind of evidence that you'll have from a controlled experiment but it's definitely not simply speculation inside the head.

But yes, you can also just compare the official versions of the systems without speculating further, as a kind of "evidence" as you said.

However, the credibility in that evidence is also speculation, so the argument itself arises at an impasse upon which one must either adhere to the belief that they are or are not, and essentially from there it becomes akin to controversial arguments that are improvable due to a lack of tangible data and are merely ideological disputes at that point, such as various religious versus anti-religious debates that cycle around the modern world today. If we had empirical evidence, then the entire problem would be resolved in the first place, but until then it is up to individuals to speculate and to counter others' speculations.

Nice nihilism here

It's really not that hard to compile empirical evidence for psychology theories, including these typologies; it's just nowhere near as neat yet as in chemistry for example.

I will yield to you once again and say that it was a mistake on my part to rely on function analysis. Though, infinity's own understanding of Si might not reflect how Si might actually manifest in the real world

With the Si thing, I'm only going as far as the theories.

I still await your response on my earlier posts.

Due to the fact that it is seemingly improbable at this state to determine whether or not the two models can actually be united, you are welcome to believing that the two models should not be united, but in the case that you were to question my own belief that they can be united, we would see the same argument as the one me and infinity held, where it is a game of reasoning (on both sides) rather than a game of evidence.

Too bad if you just see it as a game of reasoning :/ Though sure it's fun debating stuff. But it's not just about that for me.

 

[yeghor]

I was asking about you specifically, not generic MBTI INFJ. Or when you said "MBTI INFJ" here, were you referring to yourself?

Yeah, I am using myself as the reference material...assuming that I am really an INFJ... The fit and don't fit comparison I made is in reference to myself...

 

[chubber]

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.



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.

What I'm wondering about this, and the function analysis tool it was intended for, was to get the current state of the person and then get them to change from E-I-I-I or I-E-E-E. (considered unhealthy, some kind of loop) and go E-I-E-I or I-E-I-E. The structure blocks of socionics are always E-I or I-E.

Is your argument that the person in the loop, doesn't necessarily mean that they are unhealthy? But then your argument later is about the rigid structure of socionics not catering for a "unhealthy"/healthy person.

 

[chubber]

...Btw why were you asking about my subtype?

I'm asking because I'm trying to use socionics' subtype to understand why you feel you need to be ISTP in MBTI. SLE-ESTp-Ti could perhaps make you feel like an introverted extraverted attitude. That would also suite the e-8. Just thinking out loud. Hence why we have this big old, socionics isn't MBTI argument. Socionics have more boxes to play with and we can fine grain it.

 

[Jaguar]

Obviously due to the nature of the initial discussion, it is practically impossible to provide any sort of evidence unless each individual in perhaps the entire world was documented and tested [...]

INTJs use fake Fe.
Ni is usually right.
Ed shouts at parrots in his underwear.
Germans smell like bubble gum.

Claims or speculation?

IRL, I speculate all the time and I assure you, when I speculate it never sounds like a claim. "How about" or "What if?" or "Imagine" "Maybe it works like . . ." or even "I think what could be . . ." sound distinctly different than a black and white claim. If you think I'm after evidence, then you have missed the point of my post (just as someone else did for years in this forum). Speculate all day long, be my guest.

But be aware of how your post reads.

 

[Jaguar]

What I'm wondering about this, and the function analysis tool it was intended for, was to get the current state of the person and then get them to change from E-I-I-I or I-E-E-E. (considered unhealthy, some kind of loop) and go E-I-E-I or I-E-I-E. The structure blocks of socionics are always E-I or I-E.

Is your argument that the person in the loop, doesn't necessarily mean that they are unhealthy? But then your argument later is about the rigid structure of socionics not catering for a "unhealthy"/healthy person.

Look at this old post of mine:

ENTJ


Jung

Te
Ni
Si
Fi

Myers

Te
Ni
Si
Fi

Beebe

Te
Ni
Se
Fi

Berens

Te
Ni
Se
Fi

Source: Understanding and Applying Jung's Cognitive Processes. Linda Berens. (p.54)

What that post is showing is not degrees of "health," "loops" or anything negative (or positive), it is merely showing the direction those people theorized the functions pointed. (I or E.)

 

[Jaguar]

Additional reading:

Inconvenient Observations: Questions on the Role and Attitude of the Third Function - Roger Pearman

www.qualifying.org/talent-management/role-attitude-function.php

 

[infinite]

Yeah, I am using myself as the reference material...assuming that I am really an INFJ... The fit and don't fit comparison I made is in reference to myself...

Oh okay, that sounds pretty EII-ish. How about the socionics functions Ni and Fi, Fe and Ne? Have you read about them at wikisocion?

I'm asking because I'm trying to use socionics' subtype to understand why you feel you need to be ISTP in MBTI. SLE-ESTp-Ti could perhaps make you feel like an introverted extraverted attitude. That would also suite the e-8. Just thinking out loud. Hence why we have this big old, socionics isn't MBTI argument. Socionics have more boxes to play with and we can fine grain it.

ISTP? Profiles and inferior Fe. (MBTI Fe)

But yes I'm not very introverted. Not like INxx's, I mean, I'm not so sensitive to stimuli in general.

As for the socionics type, some people have actually seen me as LSI > SLE, I don't relate to the enneagram 1-ish descriptions of LSI though.

I do relate quite well to Ti as defined by Augusta, I really like that one here. Otoh, I can relate to Ti as creative function, too.

I'll post this in my type thread too and if you want to analyse deeper I think it would be more on topic there.

 

[yeghor]

Oh okay, that sounds pretty EII-ish. How about the socionics functions Ni and Fi, Fe and Ne? Have you read about them at wikisocion?

No I haven't... Have you?

 

[infinite]

No I haven't... Have you?

Ni
Ne
Fi
Fe

 

[yeghor]

Ni
Ne
Fi
Fe

When are these due Ma'am?