Ipersonic...

A Person · 01-19-2010, 05:06 AM

So my buddy showed me this personality site he found called "ipersonic" (ipersonic.com)- seems to have gained a decent bit of popularity. I explored the site a good bit and did a google search on it; it basically looks to have the same Jung theory basis as socionics/mbti (though ultimately closer to mbti it would seem)- seems to be "revamped" a bit, however.
A particular point of interest to socionics followers might be the system's romantic relationships basis, which poses some strong differences as compared to socionics type relations. For example an ipersonic "DI" (socionics infp) is matched up "best" with an ipersonic "DR" (socionics estj- conflictor). On the other hand, socionics duals are predicted to have only mediocre relationship prospects. Other romantic relationships predicted particularly good by ipersonic (based on matching ipersonic types to socionics types) are: relationships of benefit, look-a-likes, contrary relations, and quasi-identical relations.

Any particular opinions on the matter or anyone know anything more? Could romanticism be something to consider as changing the very nature of type relations (even in time) as defined by socionics?
Curious about your opinions.
(P.S.- the theory is said to have been "based on three years of research".)

munenori2 · 01-19-2010, 05:54 AM

HERESY!!!!

BURN 'EM!!!

A Person · 01-19-2010, 06:18 AM

Hahahaha. Well we should burn 'em all then, to be fair.

I get a flamethrower.

munenori2 · 01-19-2010, 09:10 AM

Basically, you need to wind up with your identical (your soul mate) or your conflictor (oppositely attractive). I don't even see the rationale there.

JohnDo · 01-19-2010, 11:04 AM

Just another MBTI test with different type names. Those tests work good for some people and completely fail for others...

Why do they recommend "conflict relations"? Because tests are not accurate...

Just forget about tests...

Jarno · 01-19-2010, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Person

(P.S.- the theory is said to have been "based on three years of research".)

well we know that that is a lie then.

Since official MBTI once 'reasoned' that the best match was someone with the opposite jungian dichotomies. INFP and ESTJ.

Though they actually did checked that, and they saw they were completely wrong. And from that moment they have never tried to make a relationship theorie based on mbti.

I once wrote to another site who claimed to have researched etc and told them that socionics claimed otherwise. I got the most amateuristic astrology based answer from the sitebuilder that I have given up debating with that kind of amateurs.

Socionics is correct. The rest is 'talking out of their asses'. You'll find out yourself soon enough when dating your conflictor :-)

But this is just part of the world, the internet is full of bullshit. Actually there's more bullshit then truth, so it takes a keen eye and 'test it yourself mentality' to filter it out.

A Person · 01-19-2010, 07:12 PM

Quote:

well we know that that is a lie then.

Since official MBTI once 'reasoned' that the best match was someone with the opposite jungian dichotomies. INFP and ESTJ.

Though they actually did checked that, and they saw they were completely wrong. And from that moment they have never tried to make a relationship theorie based on mbti.

I once wrote to another site who claimed to have researched etc and told them that socionics claimed otherwise. I got the most amateuristic astrology based answer from the sitebuilder that I have given up debating with that kind of amateurs.

Socionics is correct. The rest is 'talking out of their asses'. You'll find out yourself soon enough when dating your conflictor :-)

But this is just part of the world, the internet is full of bullshit. Actually there's more bullshit then truth, so it takes a keen eye and 'test it yourself mentality' to filter it out.

Yeah, I tend to agree with you, though I was just curious what people would say. I've observed a good deal of socionics relations "in action" (was pretty into this long ago, so I've had a while)... and though I don't think socionics relations necessarily always pan out as stated in theory, I do certainly think they're the most accurate I've seen.
It's also supposedly an "award winning test"... which cracks me up, as there really seems to be nothing new.

Jarno · 01-19-2010, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Person

Yeah, I tend to agree with you, though I was just curious what people would say. I've observed a good deal of socionics relations "in action" (was pretty into this long ago, so I've had a while)... and though I don't think socionics relations necessarily always pan out as stated in theory, I do certainly think they're the most accurate I've seen.
It's also supposedly an "award winning test"... which cracks me up, as there really seems to be nothing new.

yeah it's probably commercial shit, or some guy who wants to sound interesting.

silverchris9 · 01-20-2010, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarno

well we know that that is a lie then.

Since official MBTI once 'reasoned' that the best match was someone with the opposite jungian dichotomies. INFP and ESTJ.

Though they actually did checked that, and they saw they were completely wrong. And from that moment they have never tried to make a relationship theorie based on mbti.

Give the j/p switch, don't the first and second functions technically line up as they do in socionics? That is, since an ESTJ has the same ego functions as a socionics LSE and an INFP has the same ego functions as a socionics EII, doesn't that make the MBTI reasoning correct, or at least matching with socionics?

Jarno · 01-20-2010, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverchris9

Give the j/p switch, don't the first and second functions technically line up as they do in socionics? That is, since an ESTJ has the same ego functions as a socionics LSE and an INFP has the same ego functions as a socionics EII, doesn't that make the MBTI reasoning correct, or at least matching with socionics?

yeah, but mbti doesn't use functions to produce types. They really mean an ESTJ and INFP, only they say the INFP person has INFJ functions, which he ofcourse has not.

polikujm · 01-24-2010, 05:29 PM

Took it and read it. Doesn't sound very consistent.

Pied Piper · 03-19-2010, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarno

Socionics is correct. The rest is 'talking out of their asses'. You'll find out yourself soon enough when dating your conflictor :-)

But this is just part of the world, the internet is full of bullshit. Actually there's more bullshit then truth, so it takes a keen eye and 'test it yourself mentality' to filter it out.

LOL, I agree. It's not even necessarily to go and read that to realize, because Socionics works and was proven to me so many times, I don't believe in a second truth - which actually applies to me usually in other matters, for example in choosing a new computer operating system.

Anyway, I appreciate A Person's objectivity to tell clearly about what's it about.

01-19-2010, 05:06 AM	#1 (permalink)
A Person Initiate Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 8	Ipersonic... So my buddy showed me this personality site he found called "ipersonic" (ipersonic.com)- seems to have gained a decent bit of popularity. I explored the site a good bit and did a google search on it; it basically looks to have the same Jung theory basis as socionics/mbti (though ultimately closer to mbti it would seem)- seems to be "revamped" a bit, however. A particular point of interest to socionics followers might be the system's romantic relationships basis, which poses some strong differences as compared to socionics type relations. For example an ipersonic "DI" (socionics infp) is matched up "best" with an ipersonic "DR" (socionics estj- conflictor). On the other hand, socionics duals are predicted to have only mediocre relationship prospects. Other romantic relationships predicted particularly good by ipersonic (based on matching ipersonic types to socionics types) are: relationships of benefit, look-a-likes, contrary relations, and quasi-identical relations. Any particular opinions on the matter or anyone know anything more? Could romanticism be something to consider as changing the very nature of type relations (even in time) as defined by socionics? Curious about your opinions. (P.S.- the theory is said to have been "based on three years of research".)

01-24-2010, 05:29 PM	#11 (permalink)
polikujm riding death out a closed window Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,977	Took it and read it. Doesn't sound very consistent. __________________ Vote for my type

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-19-2010, 05:54 AM	#2 (permalink)
munenori2 Saggy old cloth cat Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Kansas Sociotype: ISFp Posts: 5,725 Blog Entries: 9	HERESY!!!! BURN 'EM!!!

01-19-2010, 06:18 AM	#3 (permalink)
A Person Initiate Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 8	Hahahaha. Well we should burn 'em all then, to be fair. I get a flamethrower.

01-19-2010, 09:10 AM	#4 (permalink)
munenori2 Saggy old cloth cat Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Kansas Sociotype: ISFp Posts: 5,725 Blog Entries: 9	Basically, you need to wind up with your identical (your soul mate) or your conflictor (oppositely attractive). I don't even see the rationale there.

01-19-2010, 11:04 AM	#5 (permalink)
JohnDo Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 497	Just another MBTI test with different type names. Those tests work good for some people and completely fail for others... Why do they recommend "conflict relations"? Because tests are not accurate... Just forget about tests...