Ask me Socionics junk

[Numbly Aware]

That's from sociotype.com.

Excuse this idiot, as she had not seen the difference.
I am sorry, in the moment I couldn't find the "right" website.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Excuse this idiot, as she had not seen the difference.
I am sorry, in the moment I couldn't find the "right" website.

I'm not calling you an idiot lol. I'm just pointing it out, as I posted resource lists earlier in the thread, and both member-contribution articles on the16types and sociotype.com were in the not good sections. What you're referring to is MBTI enthusiasts who tried to merge Socionics and MBTI based on J/P=p/j and then call those Socionics, but if there is a merger, then it obviously cannot be Socionics.

I read a ton and used occam's razor to isolate the discrete in non-contradicting ways.

 

[highlander]

@Jeremy8419 have you considered the mbti type INTP?

I was thinking exactly the same thing

 

[highlander]

MBTI function stacking has four spots, socionics has 8. As a result, MBTI function stacking and the functions are a subjective conglomeration of the Socionics elements and functions.

According to Isabel Myers yes. However, this is not strictly true. It's a matter of debate as to whether we use 4 or 8.

See Beebee, Berens and Thompson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions

 

[Jeremy8419]

According to Isabel Myers yes. However, this is not strictly true. It's a matter of debate as to whether we use 4 or 8.

See Beebee, Berens and Thompson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions

Yes; however, MBTI functions' descriptions were written to cover a complete personality psyche with only four of the eight parts of the psyche in a 4-dichotomy personality system. As such, for example, my Ni in MBTI contains a portion of both Ni and Ne from Socionics. As another example, Ni in MBTI contains descriptions of the function having unconscious aspects to it, yet in Socionics, these aspects would be one's Vital Intuition, not Mental Intuition.

To be able to put MBTI functions over to Socionics terms, you first have to split the MBTI ones into 8 discrete definitions capable of being slotted into 8 discrete locations.

Side-Bar:

Extrovert: Supplies libido into the world to receive information
Introvert: Receives libido from the world to supply information
Thinking: Matter; Information
Feeling: Energy; Libido

The extroverted feeler is concerned with supplying energy. The introverted thinker is concerned with supplying information. The extroverted thinker is concerned with receiving information. The introverted feeler is concerned with receiving energy.

 

[highlander]

Yes; however, MBTI functions' descriptions were written to cover a complete personality psyche with only four of the eight parts of the psyche in a 4-dichotomy personality system. As such, for example, my Ni in MBTI contains a portion of both Ni and Ne from Socionics. As another example, Ni in MBTI contains descriptions of the function having unconscious aspects to it, yet in Socionics, these aspects would be one's Vital Intuition, not Mental Intuition.

To be able to put MBTI functions over to Socionics terms, you first have to split the MBTI ones into 8 discrete definitions capable of being slotted into 8 discrete locations.

I have found Loony Deliria's videos to be very good. I think she references Socionics descriptions of the functions. It doesn't seem much different to me than MBTI.

 

[Numbly Aware]

I'm not calling you an idiot lol. I'm just pointing it out, as I posted resource lists earlier in the thread, and both member-contribution articles on the16types and sociotype.com were in the not good sections. What you're referring to is MBTI enthusiasts who tried to merge Socionics and MBTI based on J/P=p/j and then call those Socionics, but if there is a merger, then it obviously cannot be Socionics.

I read a ton and used occam's razor to isolate the discrete in non-contradicting ways.

I appreciate your elaboration on this subject.

I might have lightly read through the thread... I wanted to give the info I was receiving from. Also, I didn't notice anyone posting my explanation.
As reading details sometimes overwhelms my nervous system. (Some of us has had negative experiences, and any form of entering the mind or heart, will cause them so be overly sensitive, or insanely protective.) I understand, also, that if we are too short in a subject could be a form of harshness, not open/ not giving. I don't mean to mean harsh when I give a short answer, but I was raised by an ExxJ and was always expected to "GET TO THE POINT". So, I have adapted this mentality.
I will try to understand subjects little by little.

I know you were not trying to make me look like an idiot, I was just excusing myself. HOWEVER, I SUSPECT U ARE PICKING ON ME, JUST BECAUSE U CAN.

"..MBTI based on J/P=p/j and then call those Socionics, but if there is a merger, then it obviously cannot be Socionics." WHY THE HELL NOT????

 

[Jeremy8419]

I have found Loony Deliria's videos to be very good. I think she references Socionics descriptions of the functions. It doesn't seem much different to me than MBTI.

Depends on what you are calling "Socionics descriptions" and what you are calling "MBTI functions." You referenced Beebee, who is based on JCF. MBTI functions are based on JCF but are not JCF, which the link in your previous post references. For translation purposes, are you assessed in MBTI as INTJ, or did you use JCF to determine your function ordering?

 

[Bush]

I've never bought into the idea that the two systems are necessarily describing the same things.

functions

Even in these descriptions, MBTI's Si and Socionics' read completely differently, and Fi and seem tangentially related at best.

[MENTION=27890]Jeremy8419[/MENTION] please tell me if I'm off the mark. I'm sure I am.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I appreciate your elaboration on this subject.

I might have lightly read through the thread... I wanted to give the info I was receiving from. Also, I didn't notice anyone posting my explanation.
As reading details sometimes overwhelms my nervous system. (Some of us has had negative experiences, and any form of entering the mind or heart, will cause them so be overly sensitive, or insanely protective.) I understand, also, that if we are too short in a subject could be a form of harshness, not open/ not giving. I don't mean to mean harsh when I give a short answer, but I was raised by an ExxJ and was always expected to "GET TO THE POINT". So, I have adapted this mentality.
I will try to understand subjects little by little.

I know you were not trying to make me look like an idiot, I was just excusing myself. HOWEVER, I SUSPECT U ARE PICKING ON ME, JUST BECAUSE U CAN.

"..MBTI based on J/P=p/j and then call those Socionics, but if there is a merger, then it obviously cannot be Socionics." WHY THE HELL NOT????

No, I'm not picking on you lol.

Because then it's not Socionics Descriptions. Then it's Socionics (and I threw in some MBTI) Descriptions. If I made Macaroni and added Ice Cream to it, would you still say I am eating Macaroni? Or would you say I am eating Macaroni mixed with Ice Cream?

 

[highlander]

Depends on what you are calling "Socionics descriptions" and what you are calling "MBTI functions." You referenced Beebee, who is based on JCF. MBTI functions are based on JCF but are not JCF, which the link in your previous post references. For translation purposes, are you assessed in MBTI as INTJ, or did you use JCF to determine your function ordering?

I was typed INTJ through the MBTI Step 2 (and every other assessment I've taken including Nardi's JCF test).

I don't draw a distinction between JCF and MBTI functions and have yet to see anything authoritative that describes these as different things. While the MBTI instrument doesn't appear to use them, JCF and their ordering are the foundation of the 16 MBTI types. It's described in Gifts Differing.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I've never bought into the idea that the two systems are necessarily describing the same things. Even in these descriptions, MBTI's Si and Socionics' read completely differently, and Fi and seem tangentially related at best.

[MENTION=27890]Jeremy8419[/MENTION] please tell me if I'm off the mark. I'm sure I am.

The models and descriptions of the composite parts are different. Also, the phenomena that they seek to model is different. Socionics models what MBTI attempts to model, but also models the conditions and circumstances when people think in different ways.

As pointed out earlier in the thread, Socionics shows when and how I will come across as a different type than my core type, because it considers Situation. MBTI simply tells you what you "are" with no regards to the situation.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I was typed INTJ through the MBTI Step 2 (and every other assessment I've taken including Nardi's JCF test).

I don't draw a distinction between JCF and MBTI functions and have yet to see anything authoritative that describes these as different things. While the MBTI instrument doesn't appear to use them, JCF and their ordering are the foundation of the 16 MBTI types. It's described in Gifts Differing.

The one's used by MBTI in MBTI's functional stack were developed from the results of her instrument based upon the dichotomies, not the functions. It's Socionics' stance that the functional stacking for MBTI is not in accordance with Jung.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_cognitive_functions

Carl JungEdit

Carl Jung developed the theory of cognitive processes in his book Psychological Types in which he defined only four psychological functions which can take introverted or extraverted attitudes, as well as a judging (rational) or perceiving (irrational) attitude determined by the primary function (judging if thinking or feeling, and perceiving if sensation or intuition).[20] He used the terms dominant, auxiliary, and inferior. Each individual follows a "general attitude of consciousness" in which the function is conscious. The more the function is conscious the more it is introverted for introverts and extraverted for extraverts.[21] The less differentiation and are hence strongly affected by the opposing attitude of the unconscious,[clarification needed] and manifest in "happening" to the person and not under conscious control.[clarification needed][22][23][24] Therefore, there is a significant difference between Jung and the MBTI regarding the orientation of the functions.

 

[Numbly Aware]

No, I'm not picking on you lol.

Because then it's not Socionics Descriptions. Then it's Socionics (and I threw in some MBTI) Descriptions. If I made Macaroni and added Ice Cream to it, would you still say I am eating Macaroni? Or would you say I am eating Macaroni mixed with Ice Cream?

I'd say you are eating Macaroni, since Macaroni and Ice-cream consist of the same ingredient which is milk.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I'd say you are eating Macaroni, since Macaroni and Ice-cream consist of the same ingredient which is milk.

Ice-cream has sugar.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

When I say norms of behavior compared to cognition, I mean norms of "behavior compared to cognition." E.g., 98% of people say, "my behavior is X and my cognition is Y," and 2% of people say, "my behavior is X and my cognition is Z." And, oftentimes, the 98% don't understand why the 2% don't realize that the 2% don't have Z behavior, but rather have Y behavior.

I don't understand this example. Behavior is expression of cognition. They work in tandem.

How someone is perceived outwardly (stereotypes) verses how they think about themselves is confusing (IMO) with any self-discovery tool. There will be learning curves.

Introversion and extroversion is a prime example of this.

Yeah. So I am confused as to this direction of what is displayed verses what is self-identified.

Are you saying that socionics doesn't have this "blindspot" that you think MBTI has, in terms of: "one cannot fool oneself." ?

Could you clarify further?

 

[Jeremy8419]

I don't understand this example. Behavior is expression of cognition. They work in tandem.

How someone is perceived outwardly (stereotypes) verses how they think about themselves is confusing (IMO) with any self-discovery tool. There will be learning curves.

Introversion and extroversion is a prime example of this.

Yeah. So I am confused as to this direction of what is displayed verses what is self-identified.

Are you saying that socionics doesn't have this "blindspot" that you think MBTI has, in terms of: "one cannot fool oneself." ?

Could you clarify further?

It's a nice way of saying that it's fruitless to spend time on writing descriptions for behavior-to-cognition, when people will argue versus the descriptions if they have distorted cognition, and that writing the descriptions knowing such and the reader replying with "yay" or "nay" grants me knowledge of if they have distorted cognition or not, whether it is my desire to know or not.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

It's a nice way of saying that it's fruitless to spend time on writing descriptions for behavior-to-cognition, when people will argue versus the descriptions if they have distorted cognition, and that writing the descriptions knowing such and the reader replying with "yay" or "nay" grants me knowledge of if they have distorted cognition or not, whether it is my desire to know or not.

Ok. I see your point. This is correct in MBTI on the most basic level. It is the reason for a lot of newbies to mistype. Still, this dissipates with more knowlege of function stack and how they play within those boundaries.

How is socionics different? You mentioned in another post that each socionics type has a dual nature to each type based on "situation".

Could you define what "situation" is. Is this a term for "under stress"?

 

[Jeremy8419]

Ok. I see your point. This is correct in MBTI on the most basic level. It is the reason for a lot of newbies to mistype. Still, this dissipates with more knowlege of function stack and how they play within those boundaries.

How is socionics different? You mentioned in another post that each socionics type has a dual nature to each type based on "situation".

Could you define what "situation" is. Is this a term for "under stress"?

It's more like a measure of distortions within a waveform, but, yes, that is a usable terminology for it.

Socionics TIM (type of information metabolism) is a Fractal.

The small ones would be what most people use as "type," whereas the larger ones would be where that "type" exists within the individual's present psyche.

As an example, earlier it was stated that I seem INTP (or rather, Ne), to which I replied, yes, I aware that such is how I seem now. This is due to my knowledge of where Ne rests within my psyche. In this specific case, it is me operating in my Role Function exchanging information with my Creative Function, causing me to appear to be Ti-Ne. However, I am also aware of my emotional state in this situation.

Due to the 2-Dimensional model being a Fractal, it actually creates the 3rd Dimension by it's repetition. To paraphrase Flatland (the book), a cube is nothing more than a stack of planes. In this case, it's the 2-Dimensional model being stretched along another dimension: The Fractal.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

It's more like a measure of distortions within a waveform, but, yes, that is a usable terminology for it.

Socionics TIM (type of information metabolism) is a Fractal.

The small ones would be what most people use as "type," whereas the larger ones would be where that "type" exists within the individual's present psyche.

As an example, earlier it was stated that I seem INTP (or rather, Ne), to which I replied, yes, I aware that such is how I seem now. This is due to my knowledge of where Ne rests within my psyche. In this specific case, it is me operating in my Role Function exchanging information with my Creative Function, causing me to appear to be Ti-Ne. However, I am also aware of my emotional state in this situation.

Due to the 2-Dimensional model being a Fractal, it actually creates the 3rd Dimension by it's repetition. To paraphrase Flatland (the book), a cube is nothing more than a stack of planes. In this case, it's the 2-Dimensional model being stretched along another dimension: The Fractal.

I'm following you, I think. Socionics delves into all the functions and layers them to form a whole. Not unlike MBTI, but I understand their definitions are not the same.

Still, how is it not possible to mistype in socionics?

To use your example: how do you know you are EII? How do you know you haven't mixed up your creative function with your role function dependent upon what "situation" you were in when you took the test?

It seems that if socionics is more fluid and this flexibility allows for a "type" to fall in line more accurately within its more encompassing definitions - because of how broad that scope is, it would also be less definitive by nature. Or maybe that is the point? Idk.

Basically, where is your baseline and how do you know it is accurate according to socionics?

Or is there no such baseline and it is similar to MBTI in the sense one has to self-identify and introspect as best they can to find the proper fit and ignore outside influence who may say otherwise? Just trying to figure it out.