Then again I can’t say much, there are all those ILEs who sit there pining for a SEI to blow their nose and wipe their backside for them; why they tell what they think are utterly hysterical jokes.
Wow, sounds
exactly like my close ENTP friend who's married to an ISFJ...
What a coincidence...
Wow why is it that MBTI forums with subforums always have the same tedious debate?
Because idiots with half a brain keep trying to perpetuate the idea that the systems are not compatible.
And newbs come in, who don't even understand one system yet, and don't know what to make of the different notation systems, let alone the differences in the function and profile descriptions, based on Socionic's different perspective from MBTI on what makes a thing "Jish" and what makes a thing "Pish" (i.e., Socionics: it's a Judging/Rational function, vs MBTI: it's an Extroverted Judging/Rational function that causes a function/function-user to be "Jish"), and pick a Socionics type based on whether it sounds "Jish" like they perceive themselves to be, or "Pish" like they perceive themselves to be, not realizing that the truth is actually more complicated than that.
May I suggest a compromise so that we don’t have the same argument for the next year in every thread?
Firstly use the socionics connotation ILE LII etc so as to not confuse the new people who stumble in here and incidentally start World War 3.
Meh.
I think using the little 'j' and little 'p' is good enough.
Have to unravel them anyway according to what functions they indicate.
And the n00bs need to learn the difference between ISTp (SiTe) and ISTP (TiSe).
I'm not against using the SLI or LSI notation, but, hell, why not just put the functions in there?
Another option would be to just go full bore, and put SLI (ISTp; ISTJ; SiTe), or something like that.
Secondly perhaps start a thread dedicated to this truly scintillating question; perhaps with links to work done by socionics experts?
I was already planning on doing the former.
Someone else would have to take up the bulwark of the latter part of it, though.
The IEI-Ni is described as pretty intellectual. "They can fulfill the functions of an abstract thinker" (Wikisocion)
Wow...
Just like INFJs...
What a coincidence...
Don't mix MBTI with socionics.
Don't issue commands to people as if you have some authority to do so.
I have seen that as well though only on an MBTI site with a socionics sub forum; I think it might have something to do with the cross over. The IEI is a pretty feminine type compared to JCFs more gender neutral stance...
How do you find INFJs to be gender neutral?
They have the most skewed (in the women's direction) male : female ratio of all the types (~ 1 male : 5 females).
...not to mention that it loses its intellectual nature.
That's odd.
They're considered the most analytical (NT-like) of all the NFs in JCF/MBTI.
The NiTi combination can lead them to be extremely intellectual, and a lot of philosophers have been INFJs.
Whatshisname posted something supposedly contradicting what you've said here, though.
Possibly the common "same scene + different painters = different painting" issue.
Maybe you've read certain profiles that deemphasize their intellectual side.
What is an IEI left to do but to try to be a tough guy?
You actually see it from some NFJs (one INFJ enneagram 3 in particular) on here.
They clearly are dipping into their inferior/shadow and trying to act like STPs.
**************************************************
I presume by this you are opening the floor to any one able to offer an explanation? If not I hope you will not mind the intrusion.
I actually meant to start here, but decided to include the above as well.
Anyway, to preface, thanks for your thoughtful post.
I've discussed Socionics with a good number of people strong in Socionics in order to try to figure out the whole "divide", including with one of the members in here, but you seem like you might be coming from the strongest position of all of them.
I feel we could actually make some headway here.
Yes and sort of for the second part. The Ti Te relationship would keep the same principle but adhere to their respective criteria. For example it could look like this:
Te is more objective and mature than Ti when it comes to forming reasoning and analytical judgements.
I will explain this in greater detail soon but first there are two important things to remember about socionics before I explain.
I know you're gunna expand on this further, but, let me say, as an INTJ, and an ILI, and someone who for years decried how annoying INTPs/ISTPs/Ti users can be, and who clearly prefers Te, even I am hesitant to embrace language calling one function more "mature" than another. I get what you mean when you expand below, but I just don't think it's good wording. As I said in
this post, maturity is an issue of personal character, not of what functions one uses. There are mature Fe users, mature Fi users, mature Te users, and mature Ti users; and immature users of all of them as well. And then there's even maturity in certain contexts, and at certain times. It's just too complicated and value-laden a word to use in this context.
Firstly socionics is meant to be an observational science; most parts of socionics revolve around a “objective†observers analysis.
I'm sorry, I love typology, but I don't care what they like to consider themselves, whenever I hear them (and they do it often) emphasize the "objectivity" and "science" of it, I can't help but laugh. Not saying it can't reach certain levels of objectivity -- it can -- but, I dunno, it reminds me of a Russian Dr. Strangelove or something. It's just claiming a mantle that it doesn't actually possess (at least not constantly and consistently).
Secondly most of the socionics you can read in English is machine translated, and often seems to use odd word choices.
Oy vey...
Don't get me started...
Reading those translations is like pulling teeth...
I'll read them, to try to gain what insight I can, and a few of them are very good, but many are just awful.
For instance what if I changed the word mature with all its shades of meaning for realist? If I was to say that Fe is a realist compared too Fi idealism?
That is a much more acceptable word, imo.
Now from the outside perspective watching a Fi and Fe user interact, would you not conclude that the individual intent on pragmatically maintaining group cohesion was the more mature one?
Haha... no.
Why admit that "realist" is the better word, and then switch back to "mature"?
And only someone who inherently has a strong valuation for group cohesion would really find it that sensible to do so.
To those of us who value FiTe > FeTi, maintenance of group cohesion is not necessarily considered that great a thing in and of itself.
Frankly, I often think maintenance of group cohesion can lead to awful results, and is extremely immature.
It's like a bunch of lemmings telling one another just to stick together as they run themselves over a cliff.
Nothing mature about that.
If they were concerned more with the objective truth and facts of the situation (Te, Se), as opposed to group cohesion, they would see what is about to happen and stop.
I really just don't think "maturity" is at all a proper word here.
It screams of bias towards whatever function one is calling mature, and bias against whatever function one is calling immature.
You've mentioned wars about Socionics vs MBTI/JCF on forums: trust me, at least on this forum, such discussions pale in comparison to the true wars we have, which are between Fe-valuers and Fi-valuers. Those discussions are where the real blood gets spilled here. And hence the reason I made
this post in the first place. [MENTION=10791]sulfit[/MENTION] made a blatant Fe-favoring post, using extremely value-laden, flat out divisive language, and tried to pass it off as if it was objective truth. And the fact that he doesn't even realize this, and how problematic it is, is, frankly, troubling.
That is not to say that Fi idealism does not have its time and place.
Yes you can play the same scenario with Te and Ti.
True.
And fair enough.
There are times when Fi and Ti both are not the best perspectives/functions for the moment.
But that still doesn't mean they should simply be labeled "immature".
Idealistic vs realistic?
Definitely better.
There's still a little value-ladenness to that terminology, as both Fi and Ti can be realistic, when used well, at the right times, and in the right situations (which can be often, if the particular user is wise and aware).
[*]socionics is an actual branch of Russian science, it has somewhere in the realm of two thousand thesis’s; which means that its stereotypes make MBTI JCFs look minuscule and wafer thin by comparison.
How so?
There are lots of studies about MBTI.
Frankly, I don't know the number off the top of my head, but I'd guess it'd be over 2000.
Many of them, tho, are likely critiquing it as unempirical, not as good as the BIG 5, etc.
I'm not sure if you're being pejorative here to Socionics, tho, or not...
[*]Not all Quadra’s or functions are valued equally; the majority of socionics experts are reportedly male Alpha and Gamma NTs. So the other two Quadra’s and the functions that are considered feminine Fi and Si and to a lesser degree Fe are held in mixed regard, and those attitudes are played out online.
What crap.
How do they even have the audacity to lay claim to being "objective" and "scientific"?
From what I've heard, the bias is even more Alpha/NTP than anything else.
And, frankly, that's how a lot of it looks to me.
It seems very Ti/subjective logic.
It's like "here's my personal opinion passed off as objective fact".
Te users would at least put more of a premium on their claims actually having to match up with reality.
[*]Unfortunately Deltas hold the stereotype of being the SJs of the socionics world; I believe they go so far as to lay monotheistic religion and all its holy wars and massacres at Deltas feet. Luckily Betas take up the mantle of pre-Christian tribal barbarism so you get share in all that delightful horror.
And this just speaks to stupidity, not only of the stereotypes, but of the Quadra system as a whole.
I've explained this somewhere on here before, but to group the 16 types into 4 types, based on them sharing, in MBTI, the same four "regular" functions, which is what Socionics indeed does, can be interesting in certain regards, but can become
highly problematic if one loses sight of the fact that two of the types are going to be
largely opposite of the other two types, especially in so much as individuals of their respective types are still suppressing their inferior/shadow functions (tertiary and inferior), which, for the most part, all of us do, to some extent, even if we have developed/matured to a significant degree (granted, letting go of that suppression does happen, and is a sign of maturity, but many individuals never even reach that point, or only do so to a limited extent). If that's the case, and let's say 90% (and I understand this is just an assumption, is not empirically validated, but just go with it for a moment) of people largely suppress their inferior functions, then it's a stupid conceptual maneuver to group these types together and describe them as if they share tons of similarities. Yes, they might share certain similarities, in certain regards, and often, and this is important,
in highly subconscious ways, but it does not mean that they are, in an simple sense of the term, "like" one another.